On 6/15/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 Aaron and I will work to make the Apache site work. (We'll need some help from the infra folks :)
Um, I'm afraid I need to clarify my position. If the Geronimo community thinks it would be best to create and maintain an Apache site and make it the default, I am certainly fine with that. However, personally, I don't think that's a good idea. I don't see the point in spending all the effort only to create a second site that has a subset of the functionality of the first site (e.g. the same Apache plugins but none of the non-Apache plugins). Also, maintaining one site is enough work and I'm not volunteering to help create or maintain the Apache site, though of course I would be happy to answer questions and give pointers to anyone who's going to do it. Thanks, Aaron
David Blevins wrote: > Everyone, please read and ACK. > > On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: > >> Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the >> default option. > > I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts > are clear though. > > On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: >> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up >> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a >> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. >> >> Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by >> default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not >> mind, would you? > > That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is > there anyone out there who doesn't agree? > > -David > > > >
