Touche', Joe. Touche'.
On Feb 11, 2008 1:54 PM, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jason Warner wrote: > > Vamsi, I think that falls right in line with what I was saying in the > > other thread. Take a look and see if you agree. > > > > ~Jason Warner > > Which I think falls right in line with what I said earlier in this > thread too. :-) > > Joe > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 2008 1:40 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > I am indifferent to whether someone is repackaging Geronimo or > > providing a plugin on top of Geronimo. All I want to know is if > > something is running on Geronimo (or a derivative) in production. > > > > ++Vamsi > > > > > > On Feb 11, 2008 9:44 PM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Donald Woods wrote: > > > >> Along the same lines as the other discussion topic on adding a > >> "Ready for Geronimo" page under the Community section of our > >> website... > >> > >> How about we create a "Powered by Geronimo" page that would > >> help recognize the projects that provide a Geronimo based > >> bundle (like Liferay) and companies that provide applications > >> or servers based on Geronimo (like Intalio and IBM.) > >> > >> A sample can be found on our wiki at - > >> > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxSITE/Powered+by+Geronimo > >> > >> Thoughts? > > > > I'm willing to listen to contrary opinions, but I'd be against > > this. This seems to be listing sources for Geronimo support. As > > defined, we'd be willing to list companies that rebundle (and > > support) Geronimo, but not companies that support Geronimo > > directly. We could fix this by redefine "Powered by" to include > > those companies, also. > > I'd prefer to leave the whole issue untouched... > > > > --kevan > > > > > > > >
