On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 11:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Or, we just leave the current infrastructure in place and use a new one
> > for all new messages going forward. We shouldn't limit our ability to
> > have a decent system due to decisions of the past.
>
> -1. What's the point of having archives? IMO the mailing list archives
> are nearly as critical a piece of the project infrastructure as the CVS
> repository. We've already established that moving to a new SCM that
> fails to preserve the CVS history wouldn't be acceptable. I hardly
> think that the bar is any lower for mailing list archives.
>
> Now I think we could possibly skip the requirement suggested above for
> URL compatibility, if we just leave the old archives on-line so that
> those URLs all still resolve. But if we can't load all the old messages
> into the new infrastructure, it'll basically be useless for searching
> purposes.
>
> (Hmm, re-reading what you said, maybe we are suggesting the same thing,
> but it's not clear. Anyway my point is that Dave's first two
> requirements are real. Only the third might not be.)
We are saying the same thing. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.