geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site
Date Tue, 02 May 2006 18:14:15 GMT
OK, I'll put in such a change tonight.

Thanks,
    Aaron

On 5/2/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.Coar@golux.com> wrote:
> -----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