geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.C...@Golux.Com>
Subject Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Date Tue, 02 May 2006 18:02:43 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.Coar@golux.com> wrote:
>> Please revert the look-elsewhere-by-default change until
>> this is settled.
> 
> If this is the decision, I can do it.

Thank you.

> Please be aware that reverting will mean that there is no default. 

Understood.

> This is not a revert to looking at Apache, this is a revert to looking
> nowhere (e.g. the page is unusable without some special knowledge that
> you're suggesting the page itself should not contain).

Until we resolve whether it should be the default, I
suggest the following workaround:

1. Have the app say 'sorry, no default plugin location has
   not been configured.  please see the file hoo-hah.txt'
2. Have hoo-hah.txt explain how to set the property (or
   whatever), and list known locations.  At the moment
   that'll mean geronimoplugins.com

This way we're making it a decision the *user* has to make,
rather than making it for him.  And we're not silently
introducing a non-ASF site dependency into ASF code.  Regardless
of how the geronimoplugins-by-default discussion gets
resolved, this should be a very simple change to either
revert or to enhance.

How do people feel about that as a workaround?

And we may end up deciding to use geronimoplugins as
the default -- at least until there's something better. :-)

> In light of that, I ask the veto-ers to suspend their vetos until
> there is some reasonable alternative.  Alan I believe was satisfied
> with the approaches we came up with yesterday (I'm hoping you can
> confirm that).  Who was the other vetoer?

Jeff Genender expressed a -1, as did Alan.  Hernan didn't actually
veto, but he *did* say "I would really like to see and participate
in the discussions before seeing the changes already implemented."
(Hernan, I hope I'm not quoting you out of context.)  Matt and Dims
said much the same.

And I'm -1 also.  When a change arouses this much controversy,
I don't think it is a good thing to leave it in until vetoers
are convinced.  Not to mention that's not how it works.

There is absolutely no reason why there *has* to be a working
default in code currently only in svn.  There is no requirement
that the repository contain only working code.
- --
#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBRFeew5rNPMCpn3XdAQKx7wQA0B8Ag7NxngFjNbXI93VJtEn9t6t6SYfj
J3Nf0KIU1jj7oDLrgF0Tltb0AeODfhy0JoP/MDrJ3zcl6TMyWzmv/8P0f2qrmZVx
mhJCEwprEnUykGvaFtPWAD1UDKlLwz/7LaPT2G5oKBhR9LF9/kb93648l4g3BlGT
ZQ83asB1s20=
=t84U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mime
View raw message