Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
>> Well, there would be no place to announce wiki outages..
>
> Well, true, but if not the wiki, where would we announce outages to
> the outages list? :) I presume known upcoming wiki outages would be
> announced on the wiki, and actual downtime announced on the main page
> or lists. In actuality, I think wiki outages would be a very rare event.
*All* our outages should be rare events. Doesn't invalidate the point.
>>> * It's easier for people to find.
>
>> *Huh*?
>> How does the software used determine how easy it is to find a URL?
>
> I meant as far as one less URL for people to know about and track, rather
> than having yet another Postgres resource to feed and feed and publicize.
I think it's better to have a dedicated place - where project folks can
go. Then we feed it with RSS to the main site for "outsiders".
>> If we want something to track when things don't work, this shouldn't be
>> in the same system as the things it's supposed to track. Or even on the
>> same server. Or even on the same network.
>
> Agreed to a point, but I don't know that tracking the wiki is really that
> important when compared to the other things: web site, mirrors, cvs, lists,
> and bug tracker. (Just kidding on that last one.) Ideally, we'd insulate things
> even more widely than we have them right now, but we're moving in the right
> direction the last few years.
>
> Heck, we could even look at putting the wiki on two servers, with a database
> and web server on each one, with DNS pointing to each randomly. Could be a
> cool experiment.
>
Seems like an experiment is not what we want for this :-P
//Magnus