Posting an update and the news is not good.
You can see the details here:
http://groups.google.com/group/openmeta/browse_thread/thread/91ebaecdb7f4d93In short, they surprised us by not putting in the agreed upon changes, the upshot being that I have delayed the 2.3 beta by about a month or so for no good reason.
The attitude of the OpenMeta developers makes it clear that they are not interested in being taken seriously. They have evaded questions, keep asking the same questions of their own over and over again even though they have been answered several times over, and they have proven to be untrustworthy when it comes to fulfilling what has been agreed upon. Simply put, they don't seem to actually listen.
In the end, the OpenMeta code, as it stands, is unacceptable. It is risking user data unnecessarily. The current backup implementation is not something that I trust (remember that we devs have the actual code, being an open source project). I cannot in good faith integrate this code into my own and have user data reliant upon it.
I can't waste any more time on this. I can't keep delaying my release based on what might or can happen. I have to assess things as they stand right now.
All that said, I am considering putting in unofficial support. The notion is that if you have OpenMeta already installed, you can have Hazel access the 'omtool' of that install via a hidden defaults settings. This would be unofficial and unsupported but for those who want to brave the risks involved can do so. Nothing is final but at this moment this represents the best case scenario that can be expected.
I'm sorry it had to come to this but if you read the above thread, hopefully you'll come to understand. If you have any questions, please ask them here or email me.