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: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Date Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:30:48 GMT
On 6/15/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> +1 Aaron and I will work to make the Apache site work.   (We'll need some help from the
infra folks :)

Um, I'm afraid I need to clarify my position.  If the Geronimo
community thinks it would be best to create and maintain an Apache
site and make it the default, I am certainly fine with that.  However,
personally, I don't think that's a good idea.  I don't see the point
in spending all the effort only to create a second site that has a
subset of the functionality of the first site (e.g. the same Apache
plugins but none of the non-Apache plugins).  Also, maintaining one
site is enough work and I'm not volunteering to help create or
maintain the Apache site, though of course I would be happy to answer
questions and give pointers to anyone who's going to do it.

Thanks,
    Aaron

> David Blevins wrote:
> > Everyone, please read and ACK.
> >
> > On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
> >
> >> Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the
> >> default option.
> >
> > I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His thoughts
> > are clear though.
> >
> > On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
> >> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
> >> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
> >>
> >> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
> >> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
> >> mind, would you?
> >
> > That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact, is
> > there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message