Quoting Paul Menage (menage@xxxxxxxxxx): > At the mini-summit, and at other times, I've heard the repeated > complaint that having the word "container" in the name of the "task > container" framework leads to ambiguity. And separately from the > complaints, I've seen the awkwardness that people end up with when > they feel they have to distinguish between the "containers" abstract > concept, and "Paul's containers" ... > > With the hope/prospect of having the framework merged some time after > the kernel summit, I guess now's a good time to bow to the pressure > and find some compromise that everyone likes, before we actually hit > mainline. (Maybe earlier would have been even better, but ...) > > Of the various possible names that have been suggested, there are a > couple that (to me) stand out as good options: > > - control groups > - task sets > > The former (coined by Eric during a brainstorming session yesterday) > seems to capture the enforcement aspect of the framework (sysadmin can > use it to control the behaviour of processes, processes can't escape > from groups), without suggesting that it can only be used for resource > controllers (as some alternative names such as "resource groups" > imply) and would be a choice that I could be happy with. > > Does anyone have strong views on other alternative names (or even the > idea of keeping "task containers")? Purely subjectively I prefer control groups, but task sets is more descriptive about the implementation. So I'd have to vote for task sets. I like 'task containers', but it really is a pain trying to keep clear which containers I'm talking about from one sentence to the next. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers