containers mini-summit?

containers mini-summit?

[Serge E. Hallyn]

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?

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.

thanks,
-serge

Re: containers mini-summit?

[Rohit Seth]

On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 12:47 -0500, 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.
> 

I think given the short time that is left for doing travel etc.
(considering it is long weekend here in USA) it will be tough to do this
in person.

I will be interested in attending this on phone though (and will have
couple more folks from Google join in).



> Who is interested in (a) attending the mini-summit in person, (b)
> attending the mini-summit by phone, or (c) not interested?
> 
> 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.

Since Eric/Paul will be attending the KS and giving them an update, it
will be very useful if we can all agree on some set of features that
will be useful for containers and for which we need 1- input from folks
in KS and 2- let them know that this is high on priority list.

-rohit

Re: containers mini-summit?

[Pavel Emelyanov]

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.

> 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.

> thanks,
> -serge
> 

Thanks,
Pavel

Re: containers mini-summit?

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul-3ImXcnM4P+0@public.gmane.org):
> 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?  :)

> >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?

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?

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

Re: [Devel] containers mini-summit?

[Kir Kolyshkin]

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 as well (in readonly^Wobserver mode I guess).

> 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.
>
> thanks,
> -serge
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
> https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>   

Re: containers mini-summit?

[Pavel Emelyanov]

Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul-3ImXcnM4P+0@public.gmane.org):
>> 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
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.

> 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
> 

Re: containers mini-summit?

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org):
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul-3ImXcnM4P+0@public.gmane.org):
> >>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
etc

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

Re: [Devel] containers mini-summit?

[Kirill Kolyshkin]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1476 bytes --]

On 08/08/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serge-A9i7LUbDfNHQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 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, together with Pavel. Not sure if that counts but
still.

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.
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2393 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 206 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

Re: [Devel] containers mini-summit?

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Kir Kolyshkin (kir-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org):
> 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 as well (in readonly^Wobserver mode I guess).

Ok so far we have Pavel, Kir, Kirill, and hopefully Eric, Paul, and
Cedric.  Balbir, did I hear a rumer that you might be able to go?

That may be getting too large for a hotel room :)

Would one of you folks definately going be willing to pick up where I
left off in trying to get time in a room at LCE?  Let me know and I'll
send you the name of the person I'd contacted (once I find it again...)

(Still that only really works if we can get someone to show up with an ip
speakerphone so the rest of us can dial in.)

thanks,
-serge

> > 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.
> >
> > thanks,
> > -serge
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Devel mailing list
> > Devel-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org
> > https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >   
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers

Re: [Devel] containers mini-summit?

[Kirill Korotaev]

Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Kir Kolyshkin (kir-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org):
> 
>>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 as well (in readonly^Wobserver mode I guess).
> 
> 
> Ok so far we have Pavel, Kir, Kirill, and hopefully Eric, Paul, and
> Cedric.  Balbir, did I hear a rumer that you might be able to go?

No, I won't be there. If I'm not going as KLS attendee, then I won't have a visa :/

Kirill

Re: [Devel] containers mini-summit?

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Kirill Korotaev (dev-3ImXcnM4P+0@public.gmane.org):
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Kir Kolyshkin (kir-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org):
> > 
> >>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 as well (in readonly^Wobserver mode I guess).
> > 
> > 
> > Ok so far we have Pavel, Kir, Kirill, and hopefully Eric, Paul, and
> > Cedric.  Balbir, did I hear a rumer that you might be able to go?
> 
> No, I won't be there. If I'm not going as KLS attendee, then I won't have a visa :/

Sorry, the two responses from Kir apparently had me confused  :)

-serge

Re: containers mini-summit?

[Pavel Emelyanov]

Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org):
>> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>> Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul-3ImXcnM4P+0@public.gmane.org):
>>>> 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

Thanks. I will prepare some presentation. BTW, maybe we can organize
some kind of containers BoF on the conference itself to make other
people come and listen. Maybe this will attract more developers to the
virtualization? In this case the presentation may be more descriptive.

> 	what do vserver/openvz want to see upstream next - Herbert/Kirill
> etc
> 
> 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
> 

Re: containers mini-summit?

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org):
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org):
>>> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>>> Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul-3ImXcnM4P+0@public.gmane.org):
>>>>> 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
>
> Thanks. I will prepare some presentation. BTW, maybe we can organize

Great, thanks.

> some kind of containers BoF on the conference itself to make other
> people come and listen. Maybe this will attract more developers to the
> virtualization? In this case the presentation may be more descriptive.

By 'the conference itself' do you mean LCE?  That might be worth a shot.

thanks,
-serge

Re: containers mini-summit?

[Pavel Emelyanov]

[snip]

>> some kind of containers BoF on the conference itself to make other
>> people come and listen. Maybe this will attract more developers to the
>> virtualization? In this case the presentation may be more descriptive.
> 
> By 'the conference itself' do you mean LCE?  That might be worth a shot.

Exactly. I think that other people may find it interesting.

Thanks,
Pavel

Re: [Devel] containers mini-summit?

[Oren Laadan]

Hi all,

[very brief intro: I'm with the Zap project; finally have time to join the
discussions after a short period of passively watching the list]

There is a good chance I'll be passing nearby, and that would be an excellent
opportunity for me to personally meet those who plan to attend, as well
as kick-start Zap's involvement, mainly focusing on checkpoint/restart.

I'm not sure if there is already a set date for the mini-summit; I recall
the 3rd or 4th were suggested. Since I'll be in transit, it will be helpful
to set one so I can plan accordingly. So if not set yet, I vote for the
earliest possible (2nd, 3rd or 4th).

Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Kir Kolyshkin (kir-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org):
>> 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 as well (in readonly^Wobserver mode I guess).
> 
> Ok so far we have Pavel, Kir, Kirill, and hopefully Eric, Paul, and
> Cedric.  Balbir, did I hear a rumer that you might be able to go?

[SNIP]

Re: [Devel] containers mini-summit?

[Balbir Singh]

Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> I will be there in person as well (in readonly^Wobserver mode I guess).
> 
> Ok so far we have Pavel, Kir, Kirill, and hopefully Eric, Paul, and
> Cedric.  Balbir, did I hear a rumer that you might be able to go?
> 
> That may be getting too large for a hotel room :)
> 

Hi, Serge,

I am still catching up with email, yes, I am going to attend the kernel
and vm summit.

> Would one of you folks definately going be willing to pick up where I
> left off in trying to get time in a room at LCE?  Let me know and I'll
> send you the name of the person I'd contacted (once I find it again...)
> 
> (Still that only really works if we can get someone to show up with an ip
> speakerphone so the rest of us can dial in.)
> 
> thanks,
> -serge
> 
-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL