+1. Although the absence of OVM does affect some, the delay of 4.0.0-incubating impacts even more people.
On 10/19/12 10:22 PM, "Caleb Call" <calebc...@me.com> wrote: >+1 not to hold up the release (with hope that it's picked up in a future >release) > > >On Oct 19, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> >wrote: > >> 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 >
