[VOTE] Inclusion of memory overcommit manager

[Carl Trieloff]

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.