geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <>
Subject Re: Questions about site
Date Tue, 02 May 2006 18:14:56 GMT
I am now satisfied with Aarons approach as well - my -1 is now a +0.  My
issues were more with discussing this before implementing (yes CTR may
apply, but this clearly has the potential for enough strife that solid
discussion should be appropriate on this topic).

Thanks for the lengthy emails as of late Aaron, that has helped me
considerably...and this is exciting stuff.

I offer a +0 instead of a +1 as I still think there needs to be some
hammering out of the details...but I am ok with where we are at and the
direction we will be going.


Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <> wrote:
>> In the meantime, two people have invoked the 'review' part of
>> commit-then-review and expressed vetos.  Vetos need to have
>> technical justification and this is a grey area -- is this
>> a technical thing or a philosophical one? -- but in the
>> interest of amity I'm going to rule it's a technical one.
>> Please revert the look-elsewhere-by-default change until
>> this is settled.
> If this is the decision, I can do it.
> Please be aware that reverting will mean that there is no default. 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).
> 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?
> Thanks,
>   Aaron
>> > I think it makes perfect sense to move documentation and tutorials to
>> >  the Geronimo/Confluence/Apache site.  But my understanding of the
>> > Apache distribution rules is that no code not developed at Apache can
>> >  be distributed by the Apache infrastructure.
>> Correct.
>> > To be as inclusive as possible of non-Apache BSD, GPL, and commercial
>> > plugins, I think the primary plugin repository needs to be separate.
>> This is part of the issue.  The other part is making the change
>> without discussion.  Which, under CTR, is fine -- but the 'review'
>> aspect has been activated and lazy consensus no longer applies.
>> - --
>> #ken    P-)}
>> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
>> Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/
>> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
>> hYTHNBBMlhbtLiyYeMtnuwNn3VknycwwDIvr827yoVM52ifj2fQ4Tcq93cKx/srW
>> ITrqBaoDfUTqJtaygID6C8ysebDuh+MTo6VRKyeCch7KnEA7dwoasREuUUirLOYw
>> TTAHd9aaHXk=
>> =jbh8
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

View raw message