I would prefer we have full control over the infrastructure relating to
the hosting of ASF licensed plugins that are developed under ASF
projects. The recent outages and changes at other hosting sites have
only highlighted this need.
It would also be preferable that ASF hosted plugins are
On Jun 14, 2006, at 1:47 AM, John Sisson wrote:
IMO, we should only host plugins that are ASF licensed and
maintained as part of the Geronimo project. For other plugins we
can provide links to other sites (with a disclaimer that we don't
endorse them etc).
+1
John
Aaron Mulder
IMO, we should only host plugins that are ASF licensed and maintained as
part of the Geronimo project. For other plugins we can provide links to
other sites (with a disclaimer that we don't endorse them etc).
John
Aaron Mulder wrote:
I gather from what you're saying you don't think the
As far as I can see, plugins are part of Geronimo and they should be in the 1.1
documentation space.
Currently there is just one top level entry in the 1.1 doc which is for the User's Guide, if you
plan to contribute doc from a user perspective then it should definitively go into the User's
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
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.
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,
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
-1...there is a large spot here for plugins...especially ones under the
ASF license. I am still against the geronimoplugins.com thing as it
still needs addressing.
I personally think we, as geronimo, should have a system that is very
similar in nature to Eclipse plugins. I do not see why we
Sorry, I hit send too quickly.
What I was going to add was that I expect there will be a number of plugin providers for Geronimo.
The idea is excellent and hats off to you for bringing it forward to Geronimo. Here is a partial
list of possible providers.
http://geronimo.apache.org/plugins
Or Maven for that matter. In fact, we chould just snarf their entire
docco setup and use that as a starting point.
-David
On Jun 12, 2006, at 10:32 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
-1...there is a large spot here for plugins...especially ones under
the
ASF license. I am still against the
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]
Please distinguish between plugin source code, plugin binaries, and
plugin documentation. Which of these do you think should be hosted at
Apache, not hosted at Apache, or split across providers?
Thanks,
Aaron
On 6/12/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See my other post. I hit send
Why not having something like the maven guys did for m2 plugins at
mojo.codehaus.org ?
I tend to prefer a single location for all plugins rather than having
one two repos, one at Apache
for ASL plugins, and another one.We could then just redirect the
geronimoplugins.org to
the site at
Agree, but we really have two sets of plugins to host -
1) server CARs that we want to provide as plugins
2) samples and other ASF apps (like Jetspeed2) that should be delivered
separately from the server releases
-Donald
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
See my other post. I hit send too quickly. I
I'm superimposing my thinking about plugins here so please course correct me if I'm heading into a
ditch.
Plugins are effectively a way to package a server configuration so it can be conveniently shared
across multiple server instances. The easiest way to build one is to deploy an application
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
