geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Sisson <jrsis...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What's the Wiki story?
Date Wed, 14 Jun 2006 06:03:22 GMT
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 <matt@hogstrom.org> 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 <matt@hogstrom.org> 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 <hcunico@gmail.com> 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
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message