Обсуждение: A small note about the difficulty of managing subprojects

So somehow I got dragooned into speaking at the Pittsburgh Perl Workshop
(which is held only a couple miles from where I live, so it was hard to
say no).  A portion of what I had to say was that CPAN seemed to be a
lot better-run than pgfoundry.

So ... I couldn't help noticing that the consensus among the Perl guys
seemed to be that "90% of what is on CPAN is unmaintained crap".
(They agree however that the other 10% is what makes it worth doing; and
furthermore that you can't easily tell which fraction any new project
will fall into.)

Maybe pgfoundry isn't doing so bad after all.  Just sayin'.
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

> So ... I couldn't help noticing that the consensus among the Perl guys
> seemed to be that "90% of what is on CPAN is unmaintained crap".
> (They agree however that the other 10% is what makes it worth doing; and
> furthermore that you can't easily tell which fraction any new project
> will fall into.)
> 
> Maybe pgfoundry isn't doing so bad after all.  Just sayin'.

Yeah I would agree with that. I find that only "real" issue with 
PgFoundry is the PgFoundry (aka Gforge) not the quality of the projects 
being hosted.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 

On Oct 12, 2008, at 20:15, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> Yeah I would agree with that. I find that only "real" issue with  
> PgFoundry is the PgFoundry (aka Gforge) not the quality of the  
> projects being hosted.

The other thing that could use some love is searching for projects.  
Google doesn't rank pgFoundry stuff very highly, and Gforge's search  
functionality leaves something to be desired. As a lover of CPAN, I  
have to say that I don't use CPAN itself all that much; rather, I use  
search.cpan.org, which makes it dead easy to search for modules that  
have functionality I'm looking for.

But improving search should come after fixing/upgrading Gforge, IMHO.

Best,

David