Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

From	Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.user
Subject	Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
Date	2024-03-15 22:20 +0100
Message-ID	<Iin85-gWLE-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<Ib99T-coYJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

Hi,

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 10:52:17PM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> I think the discussion might usefully stop at this point before it
> degenerates to more heat than light (as is the way of most discussions
> eventually - call it an application of mailing list entropy :) ) 

Three weeks on and some have made essentially the same statements
three times over by now.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2024-02-25 00:00 +0100
  I think we can't disappear ifenslave documentation just yet (Was Re:  Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-25 00:10 +0100
  Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network  bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-03-15 22:20 +0100

csiph-web