+1. Though I told someone OVM will be supported and will be a big drop if not, more people wait a long time for 4.0.0 release. And as long as OVM is covered in a next minor release, the impact should be low.
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > +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 >> > -- Gavin
