Re: [VOTE] Inclusion of memory overcommit manager

On 09/27/2011 02:34 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > -0.9 > > I don't think we should rush into adding projects. I think there's an > open question of whether MOM should be folded into VDSM or whether it > should be stand alone. > > I'd like to see a roadmap for either integrating into VDSM or a clear > (agreed upon) description of what components own what functionality. > > My concern is that having MOM be an oVirt project would discourage > attempts to merge MOM into VDSM. > > N.B. my vote is non-binding. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori > > > On 09/27/2011 12:41 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote: >> >> This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) >> project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon >> alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration. >> >> If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted >> project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I >> will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next >> project joining. >> >> Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project >> into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours. It sounds like the next step is for the mom and vdsm project to have a discussion and come back to the list. The discussion should clarify. a.) mom is an additional daemon that wdsm would use b.) mom is a library that vdsm would use c.) mom gets included into vdsm. Either (a or b) would mean we create another project. (c) would mean we deal with it as a code contribution to the vdsm project. Anthony, Perry, I take it your concern is we don't want to setup a project if technically we include the mom as a code submission - option (c). I had assumed a or b, your concern as I read it is to rule c in/out before completed this vote.