Well, are there any volunteers to set up the Geronimo plugins project
and migrate all the current ones (directory, examples, possibly
console, etc.) to that?
Thanks,
Aaron
On 9/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Totally agree...with your points. I was commenting more on why we didn't have
it yet. I concur
that The Geronimo Project should be hosting our own set of plugins. Esp. the
Apache based ones like
directory and samples.
I hope I didn't go too far into the ditch :)
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Matt,
>
> I guess, we should the leave the offer of a new Geronimo subproject
> for plugins on the table. The bottom line is *IF* someone wants to
> develop plugins here, then we can and should set it up at that time.
> Until then it's status quo. It's not like we have not done this
> plugins concept before. For example, see the httpd's list/site of
> community maintained modules (all licenses) here:
> http://modules.apache.org/
>
> We should do as much as possible for people who wish to engage and cut
> our losses if people come up with lame reasons not to engage or don't
> wish to work within the bounds of an ASF sponsored project.
>
> Aaron, or anyone else for that matter can work where they want. We
> can't force anyone to work here. All we can do is thank them for the
> work done here so far and wish them best to continue elsewhere.
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 9/2/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think this is what most people want. I can't speak for Aaron but I
>> think he wants to build some
>> plugins that includes LGPL code. IIRC he felt that it was too much
>> work for him to build and
>> maintain the two different sites and specifically said he was going to
>> do it elsewhere for the
>> licensing issue. No one else has stepped up in the community to put
>> the alternate site together.
>>
>> I agree it is unfortunate and not good for the community but the
>> community lacks the resources /
>> interest to do both.
>>
>> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> > Just like we have a "Apache Geronimo Development Tools Subproject" why
>> > can't we have a "Apache Geronimo Plugins Subproject"? and grant folks
>> > working on plugins karma there if karma is the issue.
>> >
>> > My 2 cents...Forking community is not good. We should try to encourage
>> > people to work here especially new folks. If i had not gotten the red
>> > carpet from cocoon folks back in 2001, i'd never have made it as a
>> > Apache committer. If they had told me to open a new sf.net project
>> > with my addons that would have been the end of the road for me. I am
>> > greatly indebted to folks like Stefano who gave me a jump start.
>> >
>> > -- dims
>> >
>> > On 9/1/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sep 1, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Re: developers developing plugins - you're certainly right, we're
>> not
>> >> > developing one monolithic codebase with all the features one could
>> >> > dream of. It's impossible and I understand why people could develop
>> >> > their plugins outside. They simply don't have necessary karma to
>> do it
>> >> > here. That's a very important matter I've not thought of before.
>> >> >
>> >> > What I was not happy with was you as a Geronimo committer who's been
>> >> > doing plugin development outside. Now, when I think about it a bit
>> >> > more I think I get the gist of it - you couldn't work with your
>> >> > buddies, actually, they couldn't work as easily as they can do
>> outside
>> >> > - the rest of the jpa plugin team don't have the karma to do it
>> here.
>> >> > Got it and have to think about it a little to let my mind settle.
>> >>
>> >> A major part of my moral compass on situations like this is, "what
>> >> signal
>> >> does this send to the aspiring <ProjectName> developers out there?"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Imagine a hundred developers excited about the idea of developing
>> >> plugins
>> >> for Geronimo. How do my actions and attitudes in this situation
>> affect
>> >> them and their excitement and what does it tell them about how they
>> >> might
>> >> be perceived by me? Am I ultimately bringing them closer or scaring
>> >> them
>> >> away?
>> >>
>> >> The answers are of course harder.
>> >>
>> >> -David
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
