Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Plugins is becoming such a general term now days, I think the only real way to distinguish the overlap is through education and good documentation, not by renaming the technologies which I think would add further confusion.On Aug 24, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:As for your second point about Geronimo plugins vs. the Geronimo Eclipse plugin terminology, I totally agree with you that this will be confusing to end users. Actually since Geronimo decided to introduce the concept of plugins I have started to notice how many other types of software besides Eclipse also use that term. My browser, for example, just told me that "Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page". I was using a Macromedia product that also complained that I needed a plugin. etc. I don't have any specific ideas on how to avoid confusing users about the terminology overlap, other than to make sure that Geronimo's Eclipse plugin is listed at the appropriate site :-) -sachin
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
I can probably get you a contact from the Eclipse folks who run the Eclipse Plugin Central site, if you need/want any ideas, or answers to questions.On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:01 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactivefor a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that itwould be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipseprovides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not aplugin "repository" per se but more like a community building sitewith discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins.The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location isreferenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site isoperated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation.I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimosince I think it would be a great compliment to sites likegeronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate theGeronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domainname geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipseplugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to createand run a community site.Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin communitysite available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would loveto get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and haslots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of whatcan be accomplished with some further work and direction from theGeronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugindiscussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewedand rated by the community.With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate thegeronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven'theard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement inthe Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing thenI would like to offer full ownership and operational control of thissite to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the siteonto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how theywould react to MySQL and Joomla :-).Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the siteand to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernancreated the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in theGeronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep thecontent organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on thelook and feel, graphics, etc ;-)Looking forward to your feedback.PaulOn 6/19/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 great idea Paul.Paul McMahan wrote:> There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at> eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have> discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual> files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It> also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums. IMHO> the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for> building a healthy commercial and open source community around> geronimo plugins.>> The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and> "geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by> "eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to> donate them to the ASF. How can I do that? Just send a note to> [EMAIL PROTECTED]?>> Best wishes,> Paul>>> On 6/14/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 -sachin
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
On 8/25/06, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If it is intended to run on apache hardware, then why not use geronimo.apache.org/plugins? I don't think it's a requirement to run on ASF hardware, but a natural solution - the closer the better. All in all, your proposal is the best I've seen lately. Easy to remember and noone would think it's hosted outside the project. I like it so much that it's going to be profoundly hard to convince me to use something else. Thanks Dain! Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Paul McMahan wrote: I don't necessarily think its a requirement for the site to run on Apache hardware. But if the Geronimo dev community thinks this is important then I'm definitely game. All of the software currently used to run the site is free/open source -- Apache HTTP, Joomla, PHP, MySQL, SimpleForum, and xtdratings. But I am looking into some low-end commercial software to replace SimpleForum and xtdratings since I'm really starting to feel the pain of "you get what you pay for" :-) Take a look, at Invision Power Board http://www.invisionpower.com/ip.dynamic/products/board/index.html The best I know for an affordable price. The SimpleForum is sometimes really a pain even for small forums. Thanks, Mario
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Dain, One additional aspect I just thought of is that the Geronimo team might decide to someday create a plugin repository that is equivalent to geronimoplugins.com at the location you mentioned (geronimo.apache.org/plugins) for hosting plugins that are developed by/for the Apache projects. geronimoplugincentral.org would point at the plugins hosted at that site, Aaron's site, commercial sites, Joe's mom's site, etc... Best wishes, Paul On 8/25/06, Paul McMahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't necessarily think its a requirement for the site to run on Apache hardware. But if the Geronimo dev community thinks this is important then I'm definitely game. All of the software currently used to run the site is free/open source -- Apache HTTP, Joomla, PHP, MySQL, SimpleForum, and xtdratings. But I am looking into some low-end commercial software to replace SimpleForum and xtdratings since I'm really starting to feel the pain of "you get what you pay for" :-) I don't know where infra draws the line on what software they'll agree to host on Apache hardware. Best wishes, Paul On 8/24/06, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: > > > I don't think they are competing but complimentary. If I'm looking > > at it right the site Paul is proposing is a clearing house for all > > plugin sites that is ASF Geronimo focused. It then points to any > > number of other plugin sites (geronimoplugins.com would hopefully > > be the first of many). At least for those that follow Eclipse the > > naming is similar as well (eclipseplugincentral.com). So I see > > them as working together based on Paul's proposal and in line with > > another successful open source project. > > > > Another difference is this site was intended to be hosted on ASF > > infrastructure for the Geronimo project. I think the > > geronimoplugins.com site was specifically hosted externally as it > > contains a variety of open source licensed code. > > Geronimoplugincentral.com is a clearing house and not a warehouse. > > If it is intended to run on apache hardware, then why not use > geronimo.apache.org/plugins? > > -dain >
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
I don't necessarily think its a requirement for the site to run on Apache hardware. But if the Geronimo dev community thinks this is important then I'm definitely game. All of the software currently used to run the site is free/open source -- Apache HTTP, Joomla, PHP, MySQL, SimpleForum, and xtdratings. But I am looking into some low-end commercial software to replace SimpleForum and xtdratings since I'm really starting to feel the pain of "you get what you pay for" :-) I don't know where infra draws the line on what software they'll agree to host on Apache hardware. Best wishes, Paul On 8/24/06, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: > I don't think they are competing but complimentary. If I'm looking > at it right the site Paul is proposing is a clearing house for all > plugin sites that is ASF Geronimo focused. It then points to any > number of other plugin sites (geronimoplugins.com would hopefully > be the first of many). At least for those that follow Eclipse the > naming is similar as well (eclipseplugincentral.com). So I see > them as working together based on Paul's proposal and in line with > another successful open source project. > > Another difference is this site was intended to be hosted on ASF > infrastructure for the Geronimo project. I think the > geronimoplugins.com site was specifically hosted externally as it > contains a variety of open source licensed code. > Geronimoplugincentral.com is a clearing house and not a warehouse. If it is intended to run on apache hardware, then why not use geronimo.apache.org/plugins? -dain
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: I don't think they are competing but complimentary. If I'm looking at it right the site Paul is proposing is a clearing house for all plugin sites that is ASF Geronimo focused. It then points to any number of other plugin sites (geronimoplugins.com would hopefully be the first of many). At least for those that follow Eclipse the naming is similar as well (eclipseplugincentral.com). So I see them as working together based on Paul's proposal and in line with another successful open source project. Another difference is this site was intended to be hosted on ASF infrastructure for the Geronimo project. I think the geronimoplugins.com site was specifically hosted externally as it contains a variety of open source licensed code. Geronimoplugincentral.com is a clearing house and not a warehouse. If it is intended to run on apache hardware, then why not use geronimo.apache.org/plugins? -dain
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Hey Bruce, Glad you asked these questions. I have not had any offline discussions with Aaron about geronimoplugins.com. My intention was to have any conversation here on the dev list in context of where the discussion left off before. My gmail reader threads the whole discussion together for me nicely so maybe I'm taking that context for granted since it actually transpired a while ago :-) Here is a link to the mail archives for historical purposes: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200606.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] I do not see any conflict or overlap between the two efforts. In fact I find them quite complimentary since geronimoplugins.com site is a privately owned plugin repository that hosts plugins and (if things work out as I would hope) geronimoplugincentral is a Geronimo PMC owned site that supports the community and provides an index of plugins that are hosted elsewhere. This is exactly analogous to how Eclipse has set up their plugin ecosystem -- there are many plugin sites where you can download plugins directly into your Eclipse runtime, and there is a community site (Eclipse Plugin Central) that supports the user community with forums, reviews, etc. My intent is to follow their lead where it makes sense since they already have been in this space for a long time. As for your second point about Geronimo plugins vs. the Geronimo Eclipse plugin terminology, I totally agree with you that this will be confusing to end users. Actually since Geronimo decided to introduce the concept of plugins I have started to notice how many other types of software besides Eclipse also use that term. My browser, for example, just told me that "Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page". I was using a Macromedia product that also complained that I needed a plugin. etc. I don't have any specific ideas on how to avoid confusing users about the terminology overlap, other than to make sure that Geronimo's Eclipse plugin is listed at the appropriate site :-) Best wishes, Paul On 8/24/06, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 8/24/06, Paul McMahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive > for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it > would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse > provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a > plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site > with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins. > The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is > referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is > operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation. > > I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo > since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like > geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the > Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain > name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse > plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create > and run a community site. > > Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community > site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love > to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has > lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what > can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the > Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin > discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed > and rated by the community. > > With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the > geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't > heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in > the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then > I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this > site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site > onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they > would react to MySQL and Joomla :-). > > Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site > and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan > created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the > Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the > content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the > look and feel, graphics, etc ;-) Have you spoken with Aaron regarding geronimoplugins.com yet? I think we should try to make these two sites work together rather than against one another. What are your thoughts on this? Also, I understand that there's a difference between Geronimo plugins and the Geronimo Eclipse plugin, but that's because I'm a committer and involved. What ar
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
I don't think they are competing but complimentary. If I'm looking at it right the site Paul is proposing is a clearing house for all plugin sites that is ASF Geronimo focused. It then points to any number of other plugin sites (geronimoplugins.com would hopefully be the first of many). At least for those that follow Eclipse the naming is similar as well (eclipseplugincentral.com). So I see them as working together based on Paul's proposal and in line with another successful open source project. Another difference is this site was intended to be hosted on ASF infrastructure for the Geronimo project. I think the geronimoplugins.com site was specifically hosted externally as it contains a variety of open source licensed code. Geronimoplugincentral.com is a clearing house and not a warehouse. Bruce Snyder wrote: On 8/24/06, Paul McMahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins. The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation. I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create and run a community site. Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed and rated by the community. With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they would react to MySQL and Joomla :-). Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the look and feel, graphics, etc ;-) Have you spoken with Aaron regarding geronimoplugins.com yet? I think we should try to make these two sites work together rather than against one another. What are your thoughts on this? Also, I understand that there's a difference between Geronimo plugins and the Geronimo Eclipse plugin, but that's because I'm a committer and involved. What are your thoughts on distinguishing these two complementary and easily confusing technologies? Bruce
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
On 8/24/06, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This looks good Paul and I think it can do a lot to get momentum behind the creation of plugins (and plugin sites) as well as foster communication between plugin users. I do have some general curiosity questions like "What happens if a plugin exists on multiple sites?" and "What does it take to get a new plugin site registered?", etc... I get the gist of what you're saying, which is that there are lots of details to be worked out, and I agree. I think it is fortunate that EclipsePluginCentral has already been around for a while and has a well established community so when necessary we can always look to their site for ideas. Longer term I think there could be good synergy between EclipsePluginCentral and GeronimoPluginCentral. We have communicated about Geronimo related effort and they even offered to donate some of their custom site modules. For your specific questions: - If plugins exist on multiple sites then there could either be a review article for each instance or a single article that lists both download locations if the metadata is otherwise the same for both. - For a content management system like Joomla (which is what drives the site) handling new content submission is a bread and butter activity. For example I assigned Author permission to your account so now you should see a link on the Plugin Repositories page to add new content. I think there's a way to allow any registered user to submit new content but I'm still figuring some things out. I appears that the site is mostly focused on plugin consumers. However, there are hints that it could be used by plugin creators as well? If the latter is intended then perhaps we should include some more links to plugin development "how to's" (of course we would need to create these first ourselves). There's a Plugin Development discussion forum, and it would be easy to set up a bigger area of the site dedicated to helping plugin developers. But that might be an area of overlap with what we use the Geornimo wiki for, so for now I'm focused on the plugin directory and the discussion forum. One minor note ... the site looks great with Firefox but it definitely has some formatting problems with IE. Paul McMahan wrote: > Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive > for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it > would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse > provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a > plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site > with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins. > The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is > referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is > operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation. > > I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo > since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like > geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the > Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain > name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse > plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create > and run a community site. > > Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community > site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love > to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has > lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what > can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the > Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin > discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed > and rated by the community. > > With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the > geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't > heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in > the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then > I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this > site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site > onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they > would react to MySQL and Joomla :-). > > Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site > and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan > created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the > Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the > content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the > look and feel, graphics, etc ;-) > > Looking forward to your feedback. > Paul > > > On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> +1 great idea Paul. >> >> Paul McMahan wrote: >> > There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at >> > eclipseplugincentral.
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
On 8/24/06, Paul McMahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive
for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it
would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse
provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a
plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site
with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins.
The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is
referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is
operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation.
I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo
since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like
geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the
Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain
name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse
plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create
and run a community site.
Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community
site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love
to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has
lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what
can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the
Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin
discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed
and rated by the community.
With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the
geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't
heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in
the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then
I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this
site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site
onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they
would react to MySQL and Joomla :-).
Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site
and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan
created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the
Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the
content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the
look and feel, graphics, etc ;-)
Have you spoken with Aaron regarding geronimoplugins.com yet? I think
we should try to make these two sites work together rather than
against one another. What are your thoughts on this?
Also, I understand that there's a difference between Geronimo plugins
and the Geronimo Eclipse plugin, but that's because I'm a committer
and involved. What are your thoughts on distinguishing these two
complementary and easily confusing technologies?
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61Ehttp://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Hi Joe, what are the problems you see with IE? I mainly use Firefox but so far I can't tell the difference for what I tested with IE. Can you send me a link? Cheers! Hernan Joe Bohn wrote: This looks good Paul and I think it can do a lot to get momentum behind the creation of plugins (and plugin sites) as well as foster communication between plugin users. I do have some general curiosity questions like "What happens if a plugin exists on multiple sites?" and "What does it take to get a new plugin site registered?", etc... I appears that the site is mostly focused on plugin consumers. However, there are hints that it could be used by plugin creators as well? If the latter is intended then perhaps we should include some more links to plugin development "how to's" (of course we would need to create these first ourselves). One minor note ... the site looks great with Firefox but it definitely has some formatting problems with IE. Paul McMahan wrote: Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins. The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation. I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create and run a community site. Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed and rated by the community. With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they would react to MySQL and Joomla :-). Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the look and feel, graphics, etc ;-) Looking forward to your feedback. Paul On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 great idea Paul. Paul McMahan wrote: > There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at > eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have > discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual > files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It > also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums. IMHO > the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for > building a healthy commercial and open source community around > geronimo plugins. > > The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and > "geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by > "eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to > donate them to the ASF. How can I do that? Just send a note to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Best wishes, > Paul > > > On 6/14/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 m
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Strike my comment about IE. It looks like I had set my viewing font to "larger". Doing this made some of the text on the initial page really large (such that it wrapped and the bottom of the chars on the first line were touching the top of the chars on the second line). It also messed up the links to the actual plugins such that the "underlines" went thru the link name itself (like a low strike-through). Anyway,l when I changed the view font back to "smallest" everything looks the same on IE as it appears on firefox. Joe Joe Bohn wrote: This looks good Paul and I think it can do a lot to get momentum behind the creation of plugins (and plugin sites) as well as foster communication between plugin users. I do have some general curiosity questions like "What happens if a plugin exists on multiple sites?" and "What does it take to get a new plugin site registered?", etc... I appears that the site is mostly focused on plugin consumers. However, there are hints that it could be used by plugin creators as well? If the latter is intended then perhaps we should include some more links to plugin development "how to's" (of course we would need to create these first ourselves). One minor note ... the site looks great with Firefox but it definitely has some formatting problems with IE. Paul McMahan wrote: Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins. The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation. I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create and run a community site. Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed and rated by the community. With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they would react to MySQL and Joomla :-). Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the look and feel, graphics, etc ;-) Looking forward to your feedback. Paul On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 great idea Paul. Paul McMahan wrote: > There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at > eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have > discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual > files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It > also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums. IMHO > the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for > building a healthy commercial and open source community around > geronimo plugins. > > The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and > "geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by > "eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to > donate them to the ASF. How can I do that? Just send a note to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Best wishes, > Paul > > > On 6/14/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
This looks good Paul and I think it can do a lot to get momentum behind the creation of plugins (and plugin sites) as well as foster communication between plugin users. I do have some general curiosity questions like "What happens if a plugin exists on multiple sites?" and "What does it take to get a new plugin site registered?", etc... I appears that the site is mostly focused on plugin consumers. However, there are hints that it could be used by plugin creators as well? If the latter is intended then perhaps we should include some more links to plugin development "how to's" (of course we would need to create these first ourselves). One minor note ... the site looks great with Firefox but it definitely has some formatting problems with IE. Paul McMahan wrote: Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins. The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation. I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create and run a community site. Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed and rated by the community. With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they would react to MySQL and Joomla :-). Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the look and feel, graphics, etc ;-) Looking forward to your feedback. Paul On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 great idea Paul. Paul McMahan wrote: > There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at > eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have > discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual > files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It > also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums. IMHO > the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for > building a healthy commercial and open source community around > geronimo plugins. > > The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and > "geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by > "eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to > donate them to the ASF. How can I do that? Just send a note to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Best wishes, > Paul > > > On 6/14/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? >>
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins. The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation. I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create and run a community site. Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed and rated by the community. With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they would react to MySQL and Joomla :-). Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the look and feel, graphics, etc ;-) Looking forward to your feedback. Paul On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 great idea Paul. Paul McMahan wrote: > There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at > eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have > discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual > files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It > also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums. IMHO > the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for > building a healthy commercial and open source community around > geronimo plugins. > > The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and > "geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by > "eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to > donate them to the ASF. How can I do that? Just send a note to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Best wishes, > Paul > > > On 6/14/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 >> >>
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
+1 great idea Paul. Paul McMahan wrote: > There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at > eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have > discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual > files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It > also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums. IMHO > the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for > building a healthy commercial and open source community around > geronimo plugins. > > The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and > "geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by > "eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to > donate them to the ASF. How can I do that? Just send a note to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Best wishes, > Paul > > > On 6/14/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 >> >>
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums. IMHO the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for building a healthy commercial and open source community around geronimo plugins. The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and "geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by "eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to donate them to the ASF. How can I do that? Just send a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best wishes, Paul On 6/14/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
David Blevins wrote: On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: 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? A nice temporary solution. I think that we can come up w/ something better than an either/or link to plugin servers. I know what you mean. Maven has an ordered list of repos and there isn't really a "default" sans the fact the list is seeded with ibiblio.org. We could seed with two or three repos if we had em. It would be cool if we could leverage the Apache mirror system for plugins. It would be cool if Maven came up with a wagon that could use the Apache mirror system for repos. Regards, Alan
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: 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? A nice temporary solution. I think that we can come up w/ something better than an either/or link to plugin servers. I know what you mean. Maven has an ordered list of repos and there isn't really a "default" sans the fact the list is seeded with ibiblio.org. We could seed with two or three repos if we had em. -David Regards, Alan
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
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? A nice temporary solution. I think that we can come up w/ something better than an either/or link to plugin servers. Regards, Alan
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
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 > > > >
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
-0, i do not see the need of maintaining two different sites for plugins,unless no one will ever want a plugin with non ASL compatible dependencies.As soon as the geronimoplugins.org site is administered by the geronimo community,I do not see any needs to host it at Apache. This site has no brand or advertising, and if it is administered by the community, it will never have such a thing, so why bother having an ASL only repo ?Cheers,Guillaume NodetOn 6/15/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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. Histhoughts 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
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
I can help with infra stuff. Please loop me in when you need it. thanks, dims 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 :) 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 > > > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
+1 Aaron and I will work to make the Apache site work. (We'll need some help from the infra folks :) 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
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
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 +1 John
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
+1 david jencks On Jun 14, 2006, at 5:11 PM, 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
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
+1 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
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
I agree with this - we'll fix the default in the next rev. There have been some good ideas (including mine, I think) and we'll see how they work in code. geir 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 > >
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
On Jun 14, 2006, at 5:11 PM, 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? +1 -dain
