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.
regards
Carl.