On Thursday 31 December 2009 12:06:10 Guillaume Smet wrote:
> it's a good opportunity to have a lot of PostgreSQL projects
> gathered in one place.
>
I think there are two sides to this. One is that there is actually a danger of
concentrating a lot of our projects in one place. It makes the community more
insular, and also creates a perception in other development communties
(sourceforge/launchpad/github/etc...) that there is less postgresql related
activity going on than what is really the case.
However in general I agree that the postgresql project should try to promote
postgresql related software, however I don't think we need project hosting to
do it, and in fact I think that is the wrong way to do it. The software
catalog is a much better system for that, since it allows inclusion of any/all
projects and requires less operational overhead.
> I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one in this case and I'm also pretty
> sure there's a lot of projects that won't be moved and will be lost
> (either immediately or after a few years).
>
Ah the delicious irony of life. Trust me there was no bigger advocate of this
position than me when we were shutting down gborg. I pestered people so much
on this idea, I think I even got Josh to move some dead projects to pgfoundry
before it was all over with. In time I have come around to the idea (which
everyone else held at the time) that if the code is valuable enough to keep,
someone will move it.
> I don't really see pgFoundry maintenance as something requiring a lot
> of time. Am I wrong?
I don't know how much time it requires, but I do know it's more time than we
have been able to come up with. For years.
--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com