containers mini-summit?

Serge E. Hallyn serge at
Fri Aug 10 06:18:31 PDT 2007

Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul at
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul at
> >>Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >>>I just sent the next (final) version of the containers development
> >>>roadmap.  Eric Biederman and Paul Menage will be at kernel summit
> >>>representing this work.
> >>>
> >>>We had planned on having a containers mini-summit the day before the
> >>>kernel summit.  However interest in that appears as though it may be
> >>>too low to justify having a real mini-summit.
> >>>
> >>>So we have a few options:
> >>>
> >>>	1. we could have a mini-summit purely by phone.
> >>>	2. there is a possibility of using a part of a
> >>>	   conference room from LCE, if attendance will
> >>>	   be low.  However, having a phone line to include
> >>>	   those who cannot attend would be unlikely.
> >>>	3. if there is a large planned attendance, we could
> >>>	   continue to seek a separate venue for the
> >>>	   mini-summit.
> >>>
> >>>Who is interested in (a) attending the mini-summit in person, (b)
> >>>attending the mini-summit by phone, or (c) not interested?
> >>I will be there in person.
> >
> >Still waiting to hear whether anyone other than yourself, Eric, and Paul
> >would be there...  If not, I assume you could meet in one of your hotel
> >rooms and dial into the phone meeting?  :)
> Well, actually, I'd prefer meeting in person even if there will be

That's what I meant - if there are <6 people, meet in person in
someone's hotel room, and then you've got a phone right there so
everyone else can dial in.

> only 4 people. Talking tete-a-tete is always better than phone-a-phone :)
> Except for to meet in some cafe/park in case not many people come.
> >>>For those interested in attending, what would you expect to happen at
> >>>the mini-summit?  a) discuss the roadmap to ensure everyone is
> >>>properly represented at the summit  b) go over pieces of functionality
> >>>from the roadmap and discuss implementation options, who is
> >>>interested in working on what, and possible timelines.  c) something
> >>>else.
> >>I think it would be good if someone makes a short presentation of
> >>what is already done and what is being developed now so that we all
> >>can have an overall picture in sight.
> >
> >Hmm, so in front of the current 'roadmap' you'd like to see a list of
> >what's been accomplished so far?
> Not exactly. The entire picture. E.g. I have no idea of what is going on
> with network namespaces and checkpoint/restart. I'd also like to know what
> people think about the kernel memory resource management that was discussed
> long ago and some more questions.

We could certainly come up with a set of 'status updates' if people
would like that.  I.e.

	pidns updates - Pavel/suka
	netns updates - Eric/Daniel/Benjamin
	task containers - Paul
	memory container - Balbir
	memory checkpoint - Dave
	what do vserver/openvz want to see upstream next - Herbert/Kirill

Also if people are interested we could try to do something like that
every 1 or 2 months, presumably by phone most of the time, though we
could try to always sync it with some conference or other and see
whether a few people can meet in person just for fun.

> >I suppose that might be a good way of showing the community that this is
> >all work in progress and going along nicely, not brand-new development.
> >Pavel, do you mind writing that up?
> I do not :) I do not even mind making a presentation and showing it up in
> the mini-summit, but as I have told I haven't got a complete picture of
> what's happening. Actually I admitted that everyone has some gaps in
> their knowledges about the overall situation and thought that the person,
> responsible for this presentation would spend some time collecting the
> information from other people :)
> >Eric, do you mind at the mini-summit (or mini-summit phone call) going
> >over what you were going to present at the kernel summit?
> >
> >thanks,
> >-serge

More information about the Containers mailing list