Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:51:20 -0500 "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > > The minimal patchset is too minimal for Oren's use and the maximal > patchset seems to have run aground on general kernel sentiment. So I > guess you either take the minimal patchset and make it less minimal or > take the maximal patchset and make it less maximal, ending up with the > same thing. How's that for hand-waving useless obviousnesses :) Perfect, thanks :) > One obvious approach is to merge the minimal patchset then, over time, > sneak more stuff into it so we end up with the maximal patchset which > people didn't like. Don't do that :) Hoping that "which people didn't like" is purely conjecture. Ok, I'll advocate for proceeding with the full patch-set as long as we can. Thanks, Andrew. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
