Quoting Cedric Le Goater (clg@xxxxxxxxxx): > Paul Menage wrote: > > On 9/11/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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. > > > > I described it as "control groups" during the kernel summit > > presentation and no-one seemed to object to that name. > > > > As far as I can tell, the general mood seems to be in favour of > > "control groups" - no-one else has expressed a preference for "task > > sets". > > > > I think it's more important to express the overall intention of the > > feature rather than the implementation. Ted T'so (I think) asked at > > the summit whether things other than tasks could be first-class > > members of control groups - I said that currently they can't, but > > people may find interesting ways to conveniently make non-task objects > > first-class members in the future (rather than just holding reference > > counts the way pages do currently). > > > >> 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. > > > > Right, enough people have said this to me now, and I've seen the > > awkwardness that it entails - I don't want to add a subsystem to the > > kernel that's forever referred to as "Paul's containers" :-) > > That's how I've been calling them for a while :) It works pretty well :) > Now that LWN has announced the name rebrand in the article : > > http://lwn.net/Articles/249080/ > > I hope we can close the topic. Sure *now* you tell me. You had to wait until I provided yet one more example of how my own preferences can be taken as a reliable indicator of the inverse of the group consensus :) -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers