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: What's the Wiki story?
Date Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:23:43 GMT
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 current state of all plugins (and either have it get terribly outdated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 Most of the content in the MoinMoin is outdated or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