* Anthony Liguori <aliguori(a)us.ibm.com> [2011-09-27 09:30]:
On 09/27/2011 08:59 AM, Andrew Cathrow wrote:
>Sorry, I should have given a multi line reply, I was thinking a few steps
>Bringing MOM under the oVirt umbrella would be a great thing - whether
>that's as a standalone project or as part of VDSM.
>Personally I believe it will/should end up as part of VDSM, but either way
>- if VDSM leverages MOM (like it leverages libvirt) or if it gets merged
>into VDSM this should happen under the oVirt umbrella.
>Adding MOM to oVirt would be great and also helps to show momentum, maybe
>it remains standalone or maybe it becomes part of VDSM, either way the
>path forward should start with adding the project into oVirt.
I think this discussion highlights the need for a bit more structure for
adding a sub project. I would like to propose the following:
1) Project posts an overview page, including scope and short term roadmap
wiki. That page is then copied as a mail to board@ovirt
2) There is an official comment period that lasts for a fixed period of
time (2-4 weeks?). This time period allows for questions to be enhanced,
and the wiki to be improved.
3) At any point in this time period, the proposal can be officially
4) At the end of the period, there is a final call for comments before a
vote takes place.
I like the structured approach here. +1
>>On a related point, there are good examples that argue for
>>consolidating function inside a single daemon, and there are good
>>counterexamples. It's not always true that every node policy
>>function should be integrated within a single daemon. It probably
>>makes sense in this case. But again, VDSM doesn't do what MOM does
>>today, which is another argument in favor of contributing MOM and
>>letting the community work with it.
>>IBM Distinguished Engineer
>>Chief Virtualization Architect, Open Systems Development
>>Cell: +1 919 371-8786 | mdday(a)us.ibm.com
>Board mailing list
Board mailing list
Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center
IBM Corp., Austin, Tx