[VOTE] Inclusion of memory overcommit manager

[Perry Myers]

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.

-1

I tend to agree here.  I think adding the functionality from MOM into
VDSM makes a lot of sense, but if we go through the process of adding a
formal sub-project to oVirt only to have the functionality merged into
VDSM, then setting up the separate infrastructure (mailing lists,
maintainers, etc) seems like a lot of overhead that would need to be undone.

I suppose the crux of it is: If MOM is applicable only to being
integrated with VDSM, then let's do that and the MOM developers can
become part of the VDSM team.  If it it's useful outside of the context
of VDSM, where else might it be used?  Let's figure that out first
before we make a decision here.

So I vote -1 for the time being, but am open to further debate on this
topic.