modify url to get index.json

[tobespc]

What does this PR do?

This PR resolves the issue #13634 . By actually specifying the index file rather than just having it served up by a service, it means the registry can be as simple as a git repo that contains that file or as advanced as being a hosted service. It gives more flexibiilty to users wanting to customise the location of the plugin templates

What issues does this PR fix or reference?

#13634

Release Notes

Docs PR

[che-bot]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[che-bot]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[che-bot]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[musienko-maxim]

Can one of the admins verify this PR?

[makandre]

Hi, any status update on this? I'm waiting for this to address #13634. Thank you.

[rhopp]

Hi @makandre, we are now in semi-codefrozen state to harden the product before che 7.0 release happen - meaning any non-critical features & bugfixes shouldn't go to master branch.
If you think this feature is "must have" for Che 7, raise this on che-dev mailing list (https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/che-dev).

So far, I've triagged the #13634 issue (selected right team to raise awareness and set severity & milestone).

[nickboldt]

Seems like a reasonable solution to make Che 7 a "harder" product. As it's a one-liner change, I'd be +1 for this being in 7.0.0, but if people feel differently, then we could push it to 7.1.0, 3 weeks later.

[l0rd]

That's a dashboard change @ashumilova @evidolob can you please review?

[benoitf]

ci-build

[benoitf]

ci-test

[che-bot]

Results of automated E2E tests of Eclipse Che Multiuser on OCP:
Build details
Test report
docker image: eclipseche/che-server:13645
https://github.com/orgs/eclipse/teams/eclipse-che-qa please check this report.

[SkorikSergey]

Selenium tests execution on Eclipse Che Multiuser on OCP (https://ci.codenvycorp.com/job/che-pullrequests-test-ocp/1897//Selenium_20tests_20report/) doesn't show any regression against this Pull request.

[benoitf]

@nickboldt @l0rd you commented for approval for 7.0.0 but didn't approved :-) could you ? thx

[l0rd]

@benoitf that's because the associated issue is still flagged as 7.x

[benoitf]

@l0rd ok so maybe we could move it to 7.0.0

[nickboldt]

+1

[nickboldt]

Seems like people agree this is something we can easily fix for 7.0.0.GA so I've set that label.

But as the happy path is failing and downstream dashboard changes may be required, I won't merge this yet. Back to you, @ashumilova and @benoitf