From callback-dev-return-14472-apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Mon Oct 1 21:24:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A1C2CDEA2 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 21:24:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 96417 invoked by uid 500); 1 Oct 2012 21:24:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-callback-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 96390 invoked by uid 500); 1 Oct 2012 21:24:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact callback-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 96382 invoked by uid 99); 1 Oct 2012 21:24:09 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:24:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of reinstein.mike@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.175] (HELO mail-ob0-f175.google.com) (209.85.214.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:24:04 +0000 Received: by obceq6 with SMTP id eq6so5708594obc.6 for ; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:23:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=ZAFbTCWpYigNFpLc5bTP+27cfm1CTg0perfDSBnBPRk=; b=b/To+bsMri+P5uq9mqpNdJ6Y7xOwiEs6cIXzN8Vx8rByjzMwxd/piWZatSnf8GXFnd pZU2PW/G0MQ3nLZxj98l+3nCTGiAoyuoiXLXaVxOp8JcMJlWwq3UzMOIXpavwg9p3bxn a0YdJ3EHBfBWLfxk1/Ka8k1igG48Czbw9wpR5llWZ6T3XGUJbzXnj9JaHPRBrx12PNXO zJ59eZLmUFXCEQzH0RYi7eWH3yvHnOBQ/SIjEn2lG4HnVXnqThOFM0lUN+snKpmBnkFS BclIAXY6COV9GC/YIti9f5OMlnNczmEkbJeiaRT1cCB62OqFzD21vTOWLWzYPVzFS+b0 31WQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.29.229 with SMTP id n5mr10579449oeh.76.1349126623795; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:23:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.6.129 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:23:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 17:23:43 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: plugin analysis From: Mike Reinstein To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff253fe2b19a504cb0605a9 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --e89a8ff253fe2b19a504cb0605a9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 @Bryan: I believe each plugin basicallly does have its own repo, and this is mirrored in our "official" repo. @Don: great, thanks for adding your plugin info! On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Mike Reinstein >wrote: > > > - popularity of plugins is unclear because the git stars is for the > > whole repo, not individual plugins > > > > Is there any reason each plugin shouldn't have its own separate repo? > > - Bryan > http://heybryan.org/ > 1 512 203 0507 > --e89a8ff253fe2b19a504cb0605a9--