+1 On Oct 19, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Alex Huang <alex.hu...@citrix.com> wrote:
> +1 We decided on a time-based release. Since OVM did not make it in time to > make it a functional product, it should not make it. > > I think this vote should have a better description. It is more a vote to say > OVM did not make the 4.0 release. It is not to drop OVM. The source code is > still there. People who needs to make it work can still make it work and > help contribute it back. > > --Alex > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 9:55 AM >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: [VOTE][ASFCS40] Drop OVM from the supported HV list for 4.0.0- >> incubating release? >> >> Hi all, >> >> Following up on the OVM discussion thread [1], it appears that we don't have >> a full consensus yet. In order to move forward and make a decision as a >> community, I would like to formally call a vote on this issue. >> >> I'm proposing that we drop support of OVM for 4.0.0-incubating. I am NOT >> proposing that this drop is permanent. If someone were to decide that this >> is >> important enough to fix / update that code, then I would be in full support >> of >> that effort. >> >> IMO, we can't block a release just because of preference. So if you vote -1 >> for dropping support, I would like to know how you can help get OVM fixed >> (coding, testing, documenting) for the release. >> >> So, for the vote, please respond with one of the following: >> >> [ ] +1 : we should drop support of OVM from the 4.0.0-incubating release [ ] >> 0 : you don't have an opinion [ ] -1 : we should not drop support of OVM, and >> do the work required to get it ready prior to a 4.0.0-incubating release >> >> Thanks all! >> >> -chip >> >> >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/ey5zbnhdjik2m2em > Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service o: 415.315.9385 @johnlkinsella
