Re: What's the Wiki story?
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 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 current state of all plugins (and either have it get terribly outdated 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 Most of the content in the MoinMoin is outdated or 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 >> > >> > > > -sachin
Re: What's the Wiki story?
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 available via mirrors. Does this sound feasible? John Guillaume Nodet wrote: 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 codehaus. I think it would give the needed transparency, as I guess all the problems come from here. Cheers, Guillaume Nodet Aaron Mulder wrote: 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 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 >> >> > >> >> >>
Re: What's the Wiki story?
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 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 >> > >> > > >
Re: What's the Wiki story?
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 into Geronimo and then export its configuration as a CAR. If I have something that is really interesting I can take that item and share it with people through the Plugin Network which consists of www.geronimoplugins.com today. I'm not aware of others but I've heard through the grapevine there are others in consideration. That said, I end up with a car file that I can then redistribute which is made up of binary elements. From a Geronimo project perspective if there are elements we want to distribute for users like the Samples, Directory or ServiceMix that are items hosted by Apache Projects we should make them available from the ASF infrastructure. For plugins that have non-ASF licensed code like Life-Ray, the cools calendar thing that someone wants to hold the copyright on, a Hibernate plugin, etc. would have to be hosted external the ASF and should be. The responsibility of redistribution for those plugins would be on the site redistributing them. Also, tje documentation and support for those plugins would also be on the site redistributing them. I think it makes a lot of sense for the Apache Geronimo Project to keep a list of plugin providers that people could then consult for additional plugins. I don't recall if anyone has done any work to at least provide the minimal set of plugins at Apache but I would suspect it wouldn't be hard and I suggest that it would be good to start with the ones outlined above (all two of them :). I think the plugin framework is really nice and I suspect we'll find issues that need to be refined in terms of how flexible the system is for moving cars around different releases of Geronimo. I hope this clarifies my thinking. Aaron Mulder wrote: 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 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 s
Re: What's the Wiki story?
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 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 >> > >> > > > smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: What's the Wiki story?
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 codehaus. I think it would give the needed transparency, as I guess all the problems come from here. Cheers, Guillaume Nodet Aaron Mulder wrote: 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 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 >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > >
Re: What's the Wiki story?
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 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 >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > >
Re: What's the Wiki story?
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 >> > >> > > >
Re: What's the Wiki story?
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 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 cannot manage that here...and allow links that point to other sites for plugins...just like eclipse does. Jeff 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
Re: What's the Wiki story?
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 http://geronimoplugins.com (commercial) http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins (commercial) http://www.friendsofgeronimoplugins.org (open source) http://www.dontforgetmetoogeronimopluginsproviders.com (some odd group of people) My point is that as the list of providers grows who do we gather versioning information from? Who is first in the list, etc. I think we should organize the content for the first entry in the list and host the appropriat plugins there. Samples and Directory are good choices since they came from Geronimo and are ASF projects. For other plugin providers we offer a link to their site in alphabetical order (ascending). Does this make sense? 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 >
Re: What's the Wiki story?
-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 cannot manage that here...and allow links that point to other sites for plugins...just like eclipse does. Jeff 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 >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >>
Re: What's the Wiki story?
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 >> > >> > > >
Re: What's the Wiki story?
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 >
Re: What's the Wiki story?
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 plugin space you are talking about is to hold documentation for each of the available plugins, do I get that right? if so we may need to bring up (one more time) to this thread the what's and why's for the plugins. Plugins, the concepts, implementation and development should be part of the Geronimo v1.1 documentation as they are incorporated in this new release. Any plugin developed by the Geronimo community (and with Apache License) should be part of this and future documentation (if apply). I don't think we should expand much of other kind of plugins as we will not have much control of that development (versioning, status, bugs, licensing, etc) 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. Also in previous emails, I volunteered to do that myself unless somebody else wants to. The new proposed structure should make it easier to maintain the content up to date. Hernan 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 >
Re: What's the Wiki story?
It's easy to move content around in Confluence. So if plugins end up needing a space, then we can create one later and move the pages. I'd recommend that we delay adding a space until the content warrants it. --jason On Jun 12, 2006, at 7:31 AM, Hernan Cunico wrote: 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 Guide" as a new entry. Otherwise we should create a second top level entry and start developing some content for the Developer's Guide. 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. Hernan 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
Re: What's the Wiki story?
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 >
Re: What's the Wiki story?
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 Guide" as a new entry. Otherwise we should create a second top level entry and start developing some content for the Developer's Guide. 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. Hernan 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
