"Denis V. Lunev" <den@sw.ru> writes:

> With a small thing, though.
>
> We have agreed that we should submit infrastructure pieces one by one,
> like daniel propose. These pieces are common for all approaches and they
>  will increase the probability of the inclusion of the main piece. We
> also agree, that the net namespace management mechanism should be the
> same for all containers.

> As for approach, we have agreed that we MUST have a second option as
> there is a great probability that Dave Miller will reject Eric patches
> again and again.

Roughly.  Although the way you put it is bleak.  What you are talking
about is the normal patch review process.

One thing I do want to emphasize is that we want to do as much review
among ourselves as possible, so we don't waste Dave's time reviewing
or sorting out issues we can sort out ourselves.

However David Miller and the other networking guys are quite likely to
have issues we have never considered. (It is the nature of the beast).

Therefore we should start at simple and as straight forward as we can
and fix it from there.  If those objections happen to fall where we
have already considered them we can easily handle them, because we already
have the code.  If those objections fall somewhere else it will obviously take
us a few more days.

Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers