Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:27:53 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Andrew (Cc:d), did you see this thread go by, and it did it look > > in any way more palatable to you? Have you had any thoughts on > > checkpoint/restart in the last few months? Or did that horse quietly > > die over winter? > > argh, it was the victim of LIFO. > > All I can say at this stage is that I'll be interested next time it > comes past, sorry. Thanks, that's good to know. As you know, we started with a minimal patchset, then grew it over time to answer the "but how will you (xyz) without uglifying the kernel". Would you recommend we go back to keeping a separate minimal patchset, or that we develop on the current, pretty feature-full version? I'm not convinced believe there will be bandwidth to keep two trees and do both justice. thanks, -serge
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
