On 2/12/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serue at us.ibm.com> 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
