On 2/12/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Well it's an unfortunate conflict, but I don't see where we have any
> standing to make Paul change his terminology  :)

I have no huge problem with changing my terminology in the interest of
wider adoption. "Container" seems like an appropriate name for the
abstraction, and possibly more appropriate than for a virtual server,
but if it was decreed that the only thing stopping the container patch
being merged was that it should be called, say, "Process Sets", I
would happily s/container/pset/g across the entire patchset.

Paul
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers