Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 14:04 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > OTOH I'm not eager to make such a change right now only to find > > months later that there was a good reason to keep it in the hdr > > after all :) > > The thing that bothers me about all of these things is that we can't > truly evaluate them on their merits because we can't see how they are > expected to be used in the future. Surely there are multiple ways we > can implement details of the incremental checkpoint. > > -- Dave Oh I think that was a bogus guess on my part anyway. Like I say I don't want to encourage churn for the sake of churn at this point, but you've got me thinking that moving parent into the details and giving it a more useful name could *really* dilute some of the mystery in these patches. It's sounding good to me... -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
