On 2/12/07, Serge E. Hallyn <[email protected]> wrote:
Well it's an unfortunate conflict, but I don't see where we have any
standing to make Paul change his terminology :)
I have no huge problem with changing my terminology in the interest of
wider adoption. "Container" seems like an appropriate name for the
abstraction, and possibly more appropriate than for a virtual server,
but if it was decreed that the only thing stopping the container patch
being merged was that it should be called, say, "Process Sets", I
would happily s/container/pset/g across the entire patchset.
Paul
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
