Re: pgFoundry WAS: On pgweb project

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com]
> Sent: 08 March 2004 20:56
> To: Alexey Borzov
> Cc: Dave Page; pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: On pgweb project (Re: [pgsql-www] Update on
> 'portal' changes)
>
> Alexey,
>
> > BTW, why doesn't gborg accept new members?
> > http://gborg.postgresql.org/member/memjoin.php
>
> Ooops! This was temporary while we were copying users to the
> new PGFoundry; it needs to be turned back to regular with a warning.

Did I miss a thread? I can't find anything about a pgFoundry in my
archives. I assume it's Gforge based?

Regards, Dave

Dave,

> Did I miss a thread? I can't find anything about a pgFoundry in my
> archives. I assume it's Gforge based?

Yes. It's the whole GForge discussion on Hackers.

Hmmmm ... let me apologize for not directly addressing this list about the
"final plans" for GForge/pgFoundry, and try to remedy the situation now. I
spent so much time discussing this on Hackers that I failed to notice that
this list got cut off the CC before we reached a conclusion.

Marc, Chris Ryan, Andrew D. and the Core *have* been in the loop on this.

We've set up a new host, www.pgfoundry.org. This will hold our GForge
installation, to which we will be migrating GBorg projects as their owners
are ready to do so. We've already stopped accepting new GBorg projects.
Migration is painless and almost 100% automatic.

Within 1.5 weeks we should be offficially launching pgFoundry. Among other
things, at that time we'll be launching a contest to "re-theme" the foundry.
When portal is done, we can also discuss using some of the headers and
includes from portal to support site integration.

Anything else you need to know?

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

Please find the attached pgelephant.png as a replacement for
http://pgfoundry.org/images/pgelephant.png used in the pgFoundry ala
Savannah theme.

Gavin

Josh Berkus wrote:

>Dave,
>
>
>
>>Did I miss a thread? I can't find anything about a pgFoundry in my
>>archives. I assume it's Gforge based?
>>
>>
>
>Yes. It's the whole GForge discussion on Hackers.
>
>Hmmmm ... let me apologize for not directly addressing this list about the
>"final plans" for GForge/pgFoundry, and try to remedy the situation now. I
>spent so much time discussing this on Hackers that I failed to notice that
>this list got cut off the CC before we reached a conclusion.
>
>Marc, Chris Ryan, Andrew D. and the Core *have* been in the loop on this.
>
>We've set up a new host, www.pgfoundry.org. This will hold our GForge
>installation, to which we will be migrating GBorg projects as their owners
>are ready to do so. We've already stopped accepting new GBorg projects.
>Migration is painless and almost 100% automatic.
>
>Within 1.5 weeks we should be offficially launching pgFoundry. Among other
>things, at that time we'll be launching a contest to "re-theme" the foundry.
>When portal is done, we can also discuss using some of the headers and
>includes from portal to support site integration.
>
>Anything else you need to know?
>
>
>

On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 15:03, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Dave,
>
> > Did I miss a thread? I can't find anything about a pgFoundry in my
> > archives. I assume it's Gforge based?
>
> Yes. It's the whole GForge discussion on Hackers.
>
> Hmmmm ... let me apologize for not directly addressing this list about the
> "final plans" for GForge/pgFoundry, and try to remedy the situation now. I
> spent so much time discussing this on Hackers that I failed to notice that
> this list got cut off the CC before we reached a conclusion.
>
> Marc, Chris Ryan, Andrew D. and the Core *have* been in the loop on this.
>
> We've set up a new host, www.pgfoundry.org. This will hold our GForge
> installation, to which we will be migrating GBorg projects as their owners
> are ready to do so. We've already stopped accepting new GBorg projects.
> Migration is painless and almost 100% automatic.
>
> Within 1.5 weeks we should be offficially launching pgFoundry. Among other
> things, at that time we'll be launching a contest to "re-theme" the foundry.
> When portal is done, we can also discuss using some of the headers and
> includes from portal to support site integration.
>
> Anything else you need to know?
>

Are you planning on running this along with the current website projects
(www/techdocs/etc...) or will this be independent? ie. There was
previous discussion of a projects.postgresql.net domain to be used for
this, is that deprecated? Also for theming, shouldn't it use the main
postgresql.org css ?

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Robert,

> Are you planning on running this along with the current website projects
> (www/techdocs/etc...) or will this be independent?

Independent. Gforge is 90% dynamic content, and as such it won't fit in with
the mirroring scheme for Portal.

ie. There was
> previous discussion of a projects.postgresql.net domain to be used for
> this, is that deprecated?

The guys (Andrew, Marc, etc.) liked www.pgfoundry.org more. Several other
addresses will be configured to point to this one.

>Also for theming, shouldn't it use the main
> postgresql.org css ?

Can't AFAIK, GForge is not xhtml/css-based. Gforge formatting is
database-centric.

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> We've set up a new host, www.pgfoundry.org.

Why is it not part of postgresql.org? Seems like making it a different
domain will increase the perception of separateness from the core
project, which is something I thought we wanted to avoid.

regards, tom lane

Tom,

> Why is it not part of postgresql.org? Seems like making it a different
> domain will increase the perception of separateness from the core

part of postgresql.org was the original thought. But it messes with the
ability to give projects their own subdomains, i.e. slony.pgfoundry.org.

Marc, you want to remark on this?

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:

> Tom,
>
> > Why is it not part of postgresql.org? Seems like making it a different
> > domain will increase the perception of separateness from the core
>
> part of postgresql.org was the original thought. But it messes with the
> ability to give projects their own subdomains, i.e. slony.pgfoundry.org.
>
> Marc, you want to remark on this?

The original thought was to allocate the postgresql.net domain to the
GForge project, so that we could easily have jdbc.postgresql.net,
pgadmin3.postgresql.net, etc ... for individual "project web pages" ...
then the main site would be www.postgresql.net, but Andrew brought up the
point that it would raise confusion between it and postgresql.org, and
suggested going wiht something like pgfoundry.org for it ...

As to the "increase the perception of seperateness" ... with David
increasing awareness of, and promoting the use of, RSS feeds, and with
GForge having code in place already for doing this, we'll be able to tie
the pgfoundry site into the postgresql.org site quite effectively, I think
...

postgresql.org == the core / central project ... pgfoundry.org is all the
third party (ie. not part of the core distribution) applications and
interfaces that tie into and support the server itself ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> ... we'll be able to tie the pgfoundry site into the postgresql.org
> site quite effectively, I think ...

Okay, if you're happy with it ... it just seemed a bit at variance with our
discussions of a few weeks ago.

regards, tom lane

On Tuesday 09 March 2004 16:53, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Robert,
>
> > Are you planning on running this along with the current website projects
> > (www/techdocs/etc...) or will this be independent?
>
> Independent. Gforge is 90% dynamic content, and as such it won't fit in
> with the mirroring scheme for Portal.
>

even if doesnt fit into the mirroring scheme that doesnt mean it has to be
seperate.... techdocs/advocacy arnt mirrored... just wondering if discussion
on its development would take place here so everyone is in the loop... that
type of thing...

> ie. There was
>
> > previous discussion of a projects.postgresql.net domain to be used for
> > this, is that deprecated?
>
> The guys (Andrew, Marc, etc.) liked www.pgfoundry.org more. Several other
> addresses will be configured to point to this one.
>

hmm...from an advocacy point istm this would be a good place to play up the
postgresql brand, such that it is... but ce la vei i guess

> >Also for theming, shouldn't it use the main
> > postgresql.org css ?
>
> Can't AFAIK, GForge is not xhtml/css-based. Gforge formatting is
> database-centric.

It uses css for sure... just a question of where its going to pull it from...
if they want to be seperate though i guess a different look/feel would be the
way to go. (It's just counter to what people have complained about in the
past with gborg...)

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Robert,

> It uses css for sure... just a question of where its going to pull it
from...
> if they want to be seperate though i guess a different look/feel would be
the
> way to go. (It's just counter to what people have complained about in the
> past with gborg...)

Well, when Portal *has* a look that everyone agrees on, then someone can shape
that CSS so that pgFoundry can use it.

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

--- Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> wrote:
-- snip --
>
> even if doesnt fit into the mirroring scheme that doesnt mean it has
> to be
> seperate.... techdocs/advocacy arnt mirrored... just wondering if
> discussion
> on its development would take place here so everyone is in the
> loop... that
> type of thing...
>
-- snip --

I would say in regards to the CVS issue specifically that there
should be little to no content that should be put into CVS in regard to
the actual site of GForge. The reason I say this is because most to all
of the code should be straight GForge code. The exception to this would
be the files related to the themes and config. Outside of that you are
defeating the purpose of switching to GForge, which is to not have to
develop a project hosting infrastructure.

Chris Ryan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Robert Treat wrote:

> > The guys (Andrew, Marc, etc.) liked www.pgfoundry.org more. Several other
> > addresses will be configured to point to this one.
> >
>
> hmm...from an advocacy point istm this would be a good place to play up the
> postgresql brand, such that it is... but ce la vei i guess

There is nothing stop'ng having www.postgresql.net (or
projects.postgresql.org) pointing to it, and just using the pgfoundry.org
for the project web pages themselves ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Marc, Chris Ryan, Andrew D. and the Core *have* been in the loop on
> this.

It's curious that these decisions are now made behind closed doors
without the involvement of the people who will actually be using this
service.

There once was a time when core said "we don't do anything" and
development infrastructure was discussed on -hackers and web site
infrastructure was discussed in this list.

My perception is that this new service will be no better or worse than
the previous one, and the confusion of the users and the fragmentation
of the PostgreSQL project will continue on its path.

Peter,

> My perception is that this new service will be no better or worse than
> the previous one, and the confusion of the users and the fragmentation
> of the PostgreSQL project will continue on its path.

Gforge was discussed for over a week on Hackers. You didn't speak up then;
it's a bit late to speak up now. I didn't see any serious objections to
moving to GForge and did see a number of positive responses from project
leaders.

One of the inspirations for moving to GForge was specifically your and Dave
Cramer's comments about the difficulty of finding important PostgreSQL
accessories. Since you did not see fit to propose a solution to that
situation, we invented our own.

You can't simply run around objecting to everything, Peter, and expect people
to take you seriously. Constructive suggestions are far more likely to
produce results.

The only thing which was not discussed was the domain, which we regarded as
incidental to the installation, which I already mentioned, and I apologize
for not figuring out that people would have an opinion about it. Now that
it's been registered, though, nobody has proposed a compelling alternative,
so I don't see any reason to change things.

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

Josh Berkus wrote:
> The only thing which was not discussed was the domain, which we
> regarded as incidental to the installation, which I already
> mentioned, and I apologize for not figuring out that people would
> have an opinion about it.

That was my point and evidently you were mistaken. If the domain name
were incidental, then we might as well have stuck with gborg, because
that is what many people are used to.

Everybody had agreed to <project>.postgresql.net, and now it's gone
without explanation.

Peter,

> Everybody had agreed to <project>.postgresql.net, and now it's gone
> without explanation.

Oh! Well, if that's what you want, why didn't you say so? We can certainly
change things since it's not official yet.

Like I said, I wasn't clear that there was a consensus for the postgresql.net
scheme. Can other people speak up about this?

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> Everybody had agreed to <project>.postgresql.net, and now it's gone
>> without explanation.

> Like I said, I wasn't clear that there was a consensus for the postgresql.net
> scheme. Can other people speak up about this?

AFAIR that was proposed and not objected to, so I guess it has about as
much "consensus" as anything does around here.

regards, tom lane

On Thursday 11 March 2004 14:55, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Peter,
>
> > Everybody had agreed to <project>.postgresql.net, and now it's gone
> > without explanation.
>
> Oh! Well, if that's what you want, why didn't you say so? We can
> certainly change things since it's not official yet.
>
> Like I said, I wasn't clear that there was a consensus for the
> postgresql.net scheme. Can other people speak up about this?

I thought I did speak up...

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Robert,

> I thought I did speak up...

Yes, but from your response you didn't really seem to care.

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> There once was a time when core said "we don't do anything" and
> development infrastructure was discussed on -hackers and web site
> infrastructure was discussed in this list.

this has/had nothing to do with core ... this was a project that Josh
started ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

On Thursday 11 March 2004 18:19, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Robert,
>
> > I thought I did speak up...
>
> Yes, but from your response you didn't really seem to care.

I wasn't going to force the issue just for my own sake... but ISTM Tom, Peter,
myself and possibly others were all confused somewhat by the switch.
Anyway... the only real point that I have about the whole thing is that
people used to complain that gborg was too nebulous a name (ie. whats a
gborg?) and people didnt know to look at it, or were confused as to what its
purpose was. the idea of projects.postgresql.(org|net) seem like a real easy
way to make it crystal clear as to what exactly was going on at that site.
By making it pgfoundry.org, i guess it is clear as to its purpose as far as
project hosting, but it loses some of its ties to postgresql, to the point
where I think folks will wonder if this is an independent site or if it has
the backing of the greater postgresql community. I tend to think that would
be a step back...

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

[ I'm pushing Robert's comment over into the pghackers thread... ]

Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> I wasn't going to force the issue just for my own sake... but ISTM Tom, Peter,
> myself and possibly others were all confused somewhat by the switch.
> Anyway... the only real point that I have about the whole thing is that
> people used to complain that gborg was too nebulous a name (ie. whats a
> gborg?) and people didnt know to look at it, or were confused as to what its
> purpose was. the idea of projects.postgresql.(org|net) seem like a real easy
> way to make it crystal clear as to what exactly was going on at that site.
> By making it pgfoundry.org, i guess it is clear as to its purpose as far as
> project hosting, but it loses some of its ties to postgresql, to the point
> where I think folks will wonder if this is an independent site or if it has
> the backing of the greater postgresql community. I tend to think that would
> be a step back...

I think that last is really the crux of the issue. Josh observed that
whatever the site name is, it will be the task of the advocacy group to
"market" it with the correct public perception. But choosing the right
name will surely make it easier to control the perception. What we're
really arguing about here, IMHO, is the perceived "distance" between the
domain names for the core project and the other projects. If they're
too different then it will be very hard to get people to see the
projects as related to PostgreSQL, no matter what marketing efforts we
try. OTOH if they're too similar that may confuse things in other ways.

My feeling is that we want people to consider these projects as closely
tied to the Postgres community and so postgresql.something is just right.
I can see there are different opinions out there though...

regards, tom lane

<quote who="Tom Lane">
> My feeling is that we want people to consider these projects as closely
> tied to the Postgres community and so postgresql.something is just right.
> I can see there are different opinions out there though...
>

foundry.postgresql.org?

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 10:43:34AM -0600, Thomas Swan wrote:
>
> foundry.postgresql.org?

Been through that one... Too long when you have to add project name as
well.

Jeroen

On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 11:52, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 10:43:34AM -0600, Thomas Swan wrote:
> >
> > foundry.postgresql.org?
>
> Been through that one... Too long when you have to add project name as
> well.

I don't understand why. Presumably the postgresql.org website will have
a search for it, or it'll be a link, or it'll be a bookmark.

How many people actually type in the full url anymore?

Heck, when I goto the postgresql website I do a search in google for
"postgres" and slam the "I'm feeling lucky" button.

Having all PostgreSQL related material under one domain is beneficial to
the project. Our big issue isn't the domain is too long, it is difficult
find the subproject in the first place.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote:

> Having all PostgreSQL related material under one domain is beneficial to
> the project. Our big issue isn't the domain is too long, it is difficult
> find the subproject in the first place.

the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is
available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain
"clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 13:30, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote:
>
> > Having all PostgreSQL related material under one domain is beneficial to
> > the project. Our big issue isn't the domain is too long, it is difficult
> > find the subproject in the first place.
>
> the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is
> available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain
> "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ...

I hope there is heavy integration between the two, otherwise anyone who
doesn't read this forum will be very confused.

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is
> available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain
> "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ...

I agree we don't want <project>.postgresql.org, as that is likely to
risk name conflicts. However, that objection doesn't apply to
<project>.projects.postgresql.org, or variants of that. So far the only
objection I've heard to that sort of setup is "the domain name is too
long", and as others have pointed out, it's a weak objection.

Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both
<project>.pgfoundry.org
<project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org
point to the same place?

regards, tom lane

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote:

> On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 13:30, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote:
> >
> > > Having all PostgreSQL related material under one domain is beneficial to
> > > the project. Our big issue isn't the domain is too long, it is difficult
> > > find the subproject in the first place.
> >
> > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is
> > available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain
> > "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ...
>
> I hope there is heavy integration between the two, otherwise anyone who
> doesn't read this forum will be very confused.

there was never any question about integration between the two ... only
the URL that ppl will go to to get to the projects pages ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:36:47 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ...
> > postgresql.net is available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we
> > are keeping that domain"clean" for any future stuff we want to do
> > with the core project ...
>
> I agree we don't want <project>.postgresql.org, as that is likely to
> risk name conflicts. However, that objection doesn't apply to
> <project>.projects.postgresql.org, or variants of that. So far the
> only objection I've heard to that sort of setup is "the domain name is
> too long", and as others have pointed out, it's a weak objection.
>
> Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
> dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both
> <project>.pgfoundry.org
> <project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org
> point to the same place?

My first vote would have been for postgresql.net, but I think
<project>.projects.postgresql.org makes the most sense. If I wasn't
"in the know" I wouldn't associate
<something>.pgfoundry.(pgfoundry|postgresql).org with a PostgreSQL
related projects by looking at the URL only.

As for the "length" of the URL, I think any developer or user
of PostgreSQL is knowledgeable enough to take advantage of browser
bookmarks. :)

I'm definitely against using 'pgfoundry.org' as I believe sub-projects
should all fall under the currently used postgresql.org domain.

Another thing to think about is search engine placement. Most search
engines give higher listings to keywords that are in the domain name.
While people will search for 'postgres' and/or 'postgresql' no one
is going to come up with 'pgfoundry' on their own.

---------------------------------
Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org>
http://frank.wiles.org
---------------------------------

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

> Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
> dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both
> <project>.pgfoundry.org
> <project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org
> point to the same place?

no objection here ... my only object is/was the length issue

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Tom,

> > Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
> > dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both
> > <project>.pgfoundry.org
> > <project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org
> > point to the same place?

Sounds good to me if it's doable via DNS.

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:

> Tom,
>
> > > Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
> > > dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both
> > > <project>.pgfoundry.org
> > > <project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org
> > > point to the same place?
>
> Sounds good to me if it's doable via DNS.

DNS wise its easy ... if anything, we could extend the 'dns gen' script we
are using for the mirrors to auto-gen the DNS for the projects too ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 13:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is
> > available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain
> > "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ...
>
> I agree we don't want <project>.postgresql.org, as that is likely to
> risk name conflicts. However, that objection doesn't apply to
> <project>.projects.postgresql.org, or variants of that. So far the only
> objection I've heard to that sort of setup is "the domain name is too
> long", and as others have pointed out, it's a weak objection.
>
> Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
> dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both
> <project>.pgfoundry.org
> <project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org
> point to the same place?
>

I hate to be the fly in this ointment, but wouldn't
<project>.projects.postgresql.org be better? especially if you could
then point people to projects.postgresql.org as the main place to start
looking for projects related to postgresql.

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:02:00PM -0600, Frank Wiles wrote:
>
> As for the "length" of the URL, I think any developer or user
> of PostgreSQL is knowledgeable enough to take advantage of browser
> bookmarks. :)

I've heard this said a several times now, but that doesn't make me feel
any better. I frequently find myself in situations where I *must* get
to my project site from a memorized URL, and clicking through to it is
a luxury I can ill afford. I travel. Sometimes I'm dependent on slow
lines and/or other people's machines. For instance, whether I will be
able to respond promptly to new support requests and bug reports over the
entire month of May this year will depend partly on that ability.

Apart from that, we could do with some public attention and that's where
catchiness matters.

Jeroen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> this has/had nothing to do with core ... this was a project that Josh
> started ...

Yet Josh Berkus wrote on March 9:

> Hmmmm ... let me apologize for not directly addressing this list about the
> "final plans" for GForge/pgFoundry, and try to remedy the situation now. I
> spent so much time discussing this on Hackers that I failed to notice that
> this list got cut off the CC before we reached a conclusion.
>
> Marc, Chris Ryan, Andrew D. and the Core *have* been in the loop on this.


- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200403162210

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFAV8HmvJuQZxSWSsgRAoeSAJ9kuGJGhFYm/mA8bUKwBinH1S1X1gCfadh5
VfB3kPWBQy+kau3aNFy1I+E=
=u6Sn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> /usr/local/libexec/ppf_verify: pgp command failed
>
> gpg: WARNING: using insecure memory!
> gpg: please see http://www.gnupg.org/faq.html for more information
> gpg: Signature made Tue Mar 16 23:11:34 2004 AST using DSA key ID 14964AC8
> gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > this has/had nothing to do with core ... this was a project that Josh
> > started ...
>
> Yet Josh Berkus wrote on March 9:
>
> > Hmmmm ... let me apologize for not directly addressing this list about the
> > "final plans" for GForge/pgFoundry, and try to remedy the situation now. I
> > spent so much time discussing this on Hackers that I failed to notice that
> > this list got cut off the CC before we reached a conclusion.
> >
> > Marc, Chris Ryan, Andrew D. and the Core *have* been in the loop on this.

Core's involvement has pretty much been "do we want to look at migrating
to GForge? sure, why not?" ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664