The difference is that try.freemarker.org <http://try.freemarker.org/> is a companion site. So long as the main site is freemarker.apache.org I don’t think anyone will complain about a companion site.
Ralph > On Nov 29, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Jacques Le Roux <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Ralph, > > IIRW openoffice.org is an exception. There are others, when the domain was > well established before entering the incubator, subversion.org comes to mind. > > IMO freemarker.org was well established before entering the incubator but not > try.freemarker.apache.org which is quite recent. Hence maybe some caution > needed... > > My 2 cts > > Jacques > > > Le 29/11/2017 à 14:55, Ralph Goers a écrit : >> Personally, I don’t see why there should be a problem as long as >> try.freemarker.org <http://try.freemarker.org/> is an Apache controlled >> domain. You aren’t the only project that has a vanity domain. See >> www.openoffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org/> as an example. >> >> Ralph >> >>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 1:51 AM, Daniel Dekany <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Just as a reminder, I'm planning to request try.freemarker.apache.org, >>> from Infra and then redirect try.freemarker.org to it, because I'm >>> worried that the IPMC will dislike that we use try.freemarker.org as >>> the canonical address of the online template tester. It will also use >>> https and a LetsEncrypt certificate (we can't use the *.apache.org >>> cert on a VM). >>> >>> BTW, using a sub-sub domains is a bit extreme. I'm not aware of any >>> gotchas in out case, but if anyone is aware some, like LetsEncrypt >>> doesn't support them or something, please stop me! (Also, as this way >>> we will receive the cookies of freemarker.apache.org, but certainly we >>> will able to cope with that, if it ever causes a problem.) >>> >>> Any comments? And do you (especially PPMC members) agree? >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks, >>> Daniel Dekany >>> >>> >> > >
