See my other post. I hit send too quickly. I DO think we should
host plugins at the ASF.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I gather from what you're saying you don't think the Geronimo project
> should host any plugins? How do others feel?
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 6/12/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As you say since plugins are not owned by the Geronimo project (ASF),
>> not released by the Geronimo
>> project and are not under the oversight of the porject perhaps the
>> best thing to do is to put in an
>> HTML link pointing to www.GeronimoPlugins.com and that way that
>> project can manage the releases,
>> interdependncies, etc. I think its a nice clean break.
>>
>> When Geronimo hosts its own plugins then it would make sense for
us to
>> document them here.
>>
>> I don't think we should host documentation as part of the Geronimo
>> Project that is not under ASF
>> license.
>>
>> The plugin framework is part of Geronimo...the content is not and is
>> hosted externally. I think
>> this is the division.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> > On 6/12/06, Hernan Cunico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> As far as I can see, plugins are part of Geronimo and they
should be
>> >> in the 1.1 documentation space.
>> >
>> > I diasgree. Plugins will be versioned separately from Geronimo,
and
>> > will not all be developed by the Geronimo team. What will we do
with
>> > the Geronimo 1.1 documentation if Plugin Foo is at version 1.0 when
>> > Geronimo 1.1 ships, but Plugin Foo goes through version 1.1,
1.2, and
>> > 1.3 before Geronimo 1.2 ships? Will we constantly be updating the
>> > Geronimo 1.1 documentation? I don't think that makes sense.
>> >
>> > I think there should be a Plugins space with the Plugin Foo
>> > documentation. In the Geronimo 1.1 documentation we can include a
>> > list of known available plugins with references to their individual
>> > documentation pages, or we can actually repeat some common usage of
>> > popular plugins, but I don't think we should try to capture the
>> > current state of all plugins (and either have it get terribly
outdated
>> > or need frequent changes to the "finished" parts of the 1.1
>> > documentation).
>> >
>> >> The plan is, as I proposed several times in earlier emails, to
move
>> >> all the content from MoinMoin to
>> >> Confluence. Most of the content in the MoinMoin is outdated or
>> >> duplicated, the docs that are still
>> >> valid should be moved to a section within the new structure in
>> >> confluence. Those topics that don't
>> >> fit either the User's or Developer's guide should go into the
Geronimo
>> >> SandBox space which is
>> >> version independent. This space should hold historical data
like the
>> >> logo contest for example.
>> >
>> > OK. Who's going to do that migration? Also, I have to say, I
don't
>> > think that putting documentation in a different Wiki is going to
>> > automatically keep it up to date. It's a nice opportunity to clean
>> > up, but I imagine we'll need a regular cleaning process if we don't
>> > want our Wiki to get out of date.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Aaron
>> >
>> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> >> > I'd like to add some documentation for specific plugins to a
>> Wiki. I
>> >> > don't know if the plan is to migrate pretty much everything to
>> >> > Confluence or only keep our main documentation there and use
>> MoinMoin
>> >> > for the rest or what.
>> >> >
>> >> > Still, if we're documenting available plugins, that's probably
>> more or
>> >> > less project documentation, and should go in Confluence anyway.
>> Could
>> >> > someone with admin access create an Apache Geronimo Plugins
space?
>> >> > (The plugins will be on a separate release track from
Geronimo so I
>> >> > don't think the plugin docs should necessarily go in the 1.1
docs.)
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > Aaron
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
