On 11/22/2013 08:04 PM, Marc Fournier wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 2013, at 11:00 , Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
>
>> On 11/22/2013 08:01 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> * Stefan Kaltenbrunner (stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc) wrote:
>>>> honestly - I would strongly vote on removing postgresql completely from
>>>> freecode(and related sites), we seem to struggle to update references on
>>>> external sites for years and years now and I don't think we actually
>>>> gain a lot (if at all) from maintaining our presence there.
>>>
>>> If that meant PG wouldn't actually show up on those sites, that'd be
>>> fine, but that's not how it works. *Someone else* will just end up
>>> posting about us up there when they figure out we're not listed or
>>> whatever, and then it'll end up in the same situation.
>>
>> well - afaik we stopped maintaining our sourceforge entry and that one
>> was taken over by SF directly and is now a) always updated and b) not a
>> problem any more.
>>
>> I consider that being a good thing if you look at the archives on -www
>> and -advocacy for that download^advertising platform.
>>
>
> considering that there is a release checklist, starting from packaging straight though to press releases, why isn’t
thispart of that checklist in the first place?
not sure - I think it even was on it once (for SF not sure about freecode)
>
> it gets sporatically maintained because nobody thinks about it … make it part of the checklist of what needs to be
doneat relesae, and it will no longer be forgot …
true - but my argument is that we should look into making already
involved stuff like releases _LESS_ complex and involved (and not
require anybody how does releases having random accounts on random
external sites unless absolutely required).
I by far dont see freecode "important" enough that we need to or should
care about it as part of our release workflow tbh.
Stefan