Обсуждение: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Time to scale up?
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Montag, 24. Juli 2006 13:12 schrieb Thomas Hallgren: >> A resolution to the problem would be to allow the core team to scale up. >> More people are needed to support a more comprehensive set of features. >> So why not create specialized teams that are part of the >> core-development trust? > > I don't think trust or scaling or implementation languages are the real issue. > It has been established that for a variety of reasons, smalls tools that can > be combined work better than one big tool. That is why the Linux kernel does > not contain a windowing system. > > The issue you are facing is an issue of perception. There are a number of > ways to fix that, only one of which is including PL/Java into the PostgreSQL > source distribution. I was on the other side of the debate when we kicked > out the JDBC driver, but today I think this was the best thing that could > have happened, to both sides. If you see any measures that we could take to > make PL/Java look as good in the public eye as the JDBC driver -- certainly > that is a reasonable comparison -- then I'm sure we can address them. One thing that has been talked to death many times, but nobody ever seems to come up with a solution to, is pgFoundry, and how badly it is advertised / promoted ... so software packages over there seem relegated to a sort of 'no mans land' ... I was just thinking of it, and kinda surprised nobody else has ... why not add a section to http://www.postgresql.org's main page for it? We have two sections now: Latest News and Upcoming Events ... why not add a third one under that includes Latest News from pgFoundry? that way, when a release happens, or project is added, its very prominently displayed on our main page? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
> > I was just thinking of it, and kinda surprised nobody else has ... why > not add a section to http://www.postgresql.org's main page for it? We > have two sections now: Latest News and Upcoming Events ... why not add a > third one under that includes Latest News from pgFoundry? that way, > when a release happens, or project is added, its very prominently > displayed on our main page? Honestly, until it carries a postgresql.org domain, ..... it will always be a second class citizen except to those in the know. Joshua D. Drake > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org > Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > >I was just thinking of it, and kinda surprised nobody else has ... why > >not add a section to http://www.postgresql.org's main page for it? We > >have two sections now: Latest News and Upcoming Events ... why not add a > >third one under that includes Latest News from pgFoundry? that way, > >when a release happens, or project is added, its very prominently > >displayed on our main page? > > Honestly, until it carries a postgresql.org domain, ..... it will always > be a second class citizen except to those in the know. You mean like http://planetpostgresql.org? I've been wondering a long time why it isn't http://planet.postgresql.org/ like every other project I know. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> I was just thinking of it, and kinda surprised nobody else has ... why >>> not add a section to http://www.postgresql.org's main page for it? We >>> have two sections now: Latest News and Upcoming Events ... why not add a >>> third one under that includes Latest News from pgFoundry? that way, >>> when a release happens, or project is added, its very prominently >>> displayed on our main page? >> Honestly, until it carries a postgresql.org domain, ..... it will always >> be a second class citizen except to those in the know. > > You mean like http://planetpostgresql.org? I've been wondering a long > time why it isn't http://planet.postgresql.org/ like every other project > I know. > Well that is a very good point, because I have always considered planetpostgresql not a part of the PostgreSQL project. I hadn't even considered that it is a postgresql project until just now. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >> I was just thinking of it, and kinda surprised nobody else has ... why not >> add a section to http://www.postgresql.org's main page for it? We have two >> sections now: Latest News and Upcoming Events ... why not add a third one >> under that includes Latest News from pgFoundry? that way, when a release >> happens, or project is added, its very prominently displayed on our main >> page? > > Honestly, until it carries a postgresql.org domain, ..... it will always be a > second class citizen except to those in the know. 'k, so point the links to projects.postgresql.org ... both works ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>>> I was just thinking of it, and kinda surprised nobody else has ... why >>>> not add a section to http://www.postgresql.org's main page for it? We >>>> have two sections now: Latest News and Upcoming Events ... why not add a >>>> third one under that includes Latest News from pgFoundry? that way, when >>>> a release happens, or project is added, its very prominently displayed on >>>> our main page? >>> Honestly, until it carries a postgresql.org domain, ..... it will always >>> be a second class citizen except to those in the know. >> >> You mean like http://planetpostgresql.org? I've been wondering a long >> time why it isn't http://planet.postgresql.org/ like every other project >> I know. >> > > Well that is a very good point, because I have always considered > planetpostgresql not a part of the PostgreSQL project. I hadn't even > considered that it is a postgresql project until just now. Just curious, but why does it have to be *.postgresql.org to be considered official? Isn't official what we make it ... ? It should be prominently linked *from* the main web site, but shouldn't *have* to be a subdomain of ... pgFoundry should have, I think, a more prominent link in the Weekly News stuff ... we could also add the various web sites, individually, and with short blurbs, to the mailing list tips ... The thing is, everyone spends their time putting pgFoundry down as being 'second class' ... of course everyone else is going to consider it such also ... it isn't second class, nor was it ever meant to be ... if ppl promoted, pushed and advertised it more, it would be as 'second class' as common to go to as CPAN is for Perl ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
>> >> Well that is a very good point, because I have always considered >> planetpostgresql not a part of the PostgreSQL project. I hadn't even >> considered that it is a postgresql project until just now. > > Just curious, but why does it have to be *.postgresql.org to be > considered official? Isn't official what we make it ... ? Absolutely not (unfortunately). Official is what people "perceive" is official. For a case and point, go to http://www.ximian.com or http://www.suse.com . You will note that they no longer exist and have been absorbed into Novell.com. The reason for this is to show an official integration, so that people are comfortable with the respective brands because they are comfortable with Novell. The same applies for our sub projects, until they are recognized under the official project domain name. They will always be considered third party. > The thing is, everyone spends their time putting pgFoundry down as being > 'second class' ... of course everyone else is going to consider it such > also ... it isn't second class, nor was it ever meant to be ... if ppl > promoted, pushed and advertised it more, it would be as 'second class' > as common to go to as CPAN is for Perl ... Perhaps the fact that everyone is putting down pgFoundry as second class is telling to the point that we need to promote it's perception? E.g; get it under projects.postgresql.org where it really belongs. And as Alvaro mentioned, the same should go for planet.postgresql.org . Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > if ppl promoted, pushed and advertised it more, it would be as > 'second class' as common to go to as CPAN is for Perl ... Um.... http://cpan.perl.org/ http://cpan.perl.com/ - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com End Point Corporation PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200607241207 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFExPCvvJuQZxSWSsgRAszwAKC9PrkuDOjphmnl216GE4VxmpgBpQCg6Iy7 6Y2faxx5+RFOZFOniySP+vU= =E0fR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>> >>> I was just thinking of it, and kinda surprised nobody else has ... >>> why not add a section to http://www.postgresql.org's main page for >>> it? We have two sections now: Latest News and Upcoming Events ... >>> why not add a third one under that includes Latest News from >>> pgFoundry? that way, when a release happens, or project is added, >>> its very prominently displayed on our main page? >> >> Honestly, until it carries a postgresql.org domain, ..... it will >> always be a second class citizen except to those in the know. > > 'k, so point the links to projects.postgresql.org ... both works ... It also needs to be the primary name on pgfoundry. It is all about seamless integration. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org > Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >>>> >>>> I was just thinking of it, and kinda surprised nobody else has ... why >>>> not add a section to http://www.postgresql.org's main page for it? We >>>> have two sections now: Latest News and Upcoming Events ... why not add a >>>> third one under that includes Latest News from pgFoundry? that way, when >>>> a release happens, or project is added, its very prominently displayed on >>>> our main page? >>> >>> Honestly, until it carries a postgresql.org domain, ..... it will always >>> be a second class citizen except to those in the know. >> >> 'k, so point the links to projects.postgresql.org ... both works ... > > It also needs to be the primary name on pgfoundry. It is all about seamless > integration. Odd, do you want to have a quick peak to see what I'm missing? UseCanonicalName is turned Off, but if you go to projects.postgresql.org, it is being redirected to pgfoundry.org, instead of serving up pages ... might be something internal to gforge though ... Be nice if both could work at the same time, so that all of the search engines still finds everything :( ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
Hi, On Mon, 2006-07-24 at 09:04 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > And as Alvaro mentioned, the same should go for > planet.postgresql.org . Why? We offer blogging area to PostgreSQL people there. However we don't control (that's our policy) what those people write to their blogs. What if those people write something that is not acceptable for PostgreSQL? This site is not a part of PostgreSQL project. At least it was not designed so. That's what I thought when I got this domain 2 years ago. Personally I'm against this, because I don't feel Planet as a part of main PostgreSQL project... ... and I don't care for other planets, like kde, etc. Regards, -- The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Вложения
You mean like PgFoundry? On Jul 24, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Derek M. Rodner wrote: > Newbie alert.... > > What if we tried to merge ALL of the different Postgres auxiliary > projects into a forge site like sugarforge.org? > > For those of us that are "new", it seems illogical for projects to > be scattered all over the place... I am not implying that they > should be part of the physical Postgres package, but co-location of > all of these tools makes them more accessible and gives "one-stop > shopping" for those who are Postgres users.... > > If we could get the resources to create a repository like > SugarForge it would also have many indirect benefits: > 1. A single repository for everyone to go consolidates many varied > projects and might reduce redundancy > 2. Let's outsiders see just how big the Postgres community really is > 3. Might entice others to get involved > 4. Raises the Postgres profile in the market > 5. Gives a more "professional" face to Postgres which it needs to > jump to the next level > > Now, I understand the efforts involved in this, but I wanted to at > least plant the seed. > > Derek > > > Derek M. Rodner > Director, Marketing > EnterpriseDB Corporation > 33 Wood Avenue, Second Floor > Iselin, NJ 08830 > 732.331.1333 > > > > > Jussi Mikkola wrote: >> I think there are some very good points in this, and in this >> thread in general. Atleast worth a few thoughts. >> >> First about the different domains. Yes, it is very much like >> different brands. And what is good or bad in it? Well, those >> projects that are not under the PostgreSQL umbrella, are not that >> official, and not consider part of the "package". But, on the >> other hand, it could be beneficial for the main project, if the >> "package" would contain things like PgAdmin, Slony etc. I believe, >> that it would make the total package more "valuable" in business >> terms. >> >> But, if those parts would be in the same package, then that would >> mean more responsibility for the core. Someone would need to say >> that this is beta, and this is ready. But that would be important >> for the users, so it could be worth it. How it would be done, that >> would require some talks between all those projects. But I can >> see, that the current core could focus on the database itself, and >> then there could be another organ that would look at all the >> joining parts. >> >> When those projects are clearly separate, it also means that there >> are a lot of brands. And if we want to promote all these projects, >> it will require additional effort. So, instead of making one >> strong brand, we kind of try to make one brand, and then we try to >> promote also many other brands that are necessary for the one >> brand. No focus. >> >> From the advocacy perspective I see joining projects under a >> common umbrella as a very good idea. Of course, those other >> projects should also see it beneficial, and it would probably >> require a lot of work to make these projects more connected. But I >> am quite sure, that it would at least make the advocacy part a lot >> easier. There would be more to talk about, and the links would not >> be pointed out to third party websites. >> >> Rgs, >> >> Jussi >> >> >> Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> Well that is a very good point, because I have always >>>>> considered planetpostgresql not a part of the PostgreSQL >>>>> project. I hadn't even considered that it is a postgresql >>>>> project until just now. >>>> >>>> Just curious, but why does it have to be *.postgresql.org to be >>>> considered official? Isn't official what we make it ... ? >>> >>> Absolutely not (unfortunately). Official is what people >>> "perceive" is official. >>> >>> For a case and point, go to http://www.ximian.com or http:// >>> www.suse.com . You will note that they no longer exist and have >>> been absorbed into Novell.com. >>> >>> The reason for this is to show an official integration, so that >>> people are comfortable with the respective brands because they >>> are comfortable with Novell. >>> >>> The same applies for our sub projects, until they are recognized >>> under the official project domain name. They will always be >>> considered third party. >>> >>>> The thing is, everyone spends their time putting pgFoundry down >>>> as being 'second class' ... of course everyone else is going to >>>> consider it such also ... it isn't second class, nor was it ever >>>> meant to be ... if ppl promoted, pushed and advertised it more, >>>> it would be as 'second class' as common to go to as CPAN is for >>>> Perl ... >>> >>> Perhaps the fact that everyone is putting down pgFoundry as >>> second class is telling to the point that we need to promote it's >>> perception? E.g; get it under projects.postgresql.org where it >>> really belongs. >>> >>> And as Alvaro mentioned, the same should go for >>> planet.postgresql.org . >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> Joshua D. Drake >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ---------------------------(end of >> broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend >> > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Derek M. Rodner wrote:
> Newbie alert....
>
> What if we tried to merge ALL of the different Postgres auxiliary
> projects into a forge site like sugarforge.org?
www.pgfoundry.org
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Newbie alert.... What if we tried to merge ALL of the different Postgres auxiliary projects into a forge site like sugarforge.org? For those of us that are "new", it seems illogical for projects to be scattered all over the place... I am not implying that they should be part of the physical Postgres package, but co-location of all of these tools makes them more accessible and gives "one-stop shopping" for those who are Postgres users.... If we could get the resources to create a repository like SugarForge it would also have many indirect benefits: 1. A single repository for everyone to go consolidates many varied projects and might reduce redundancy 2. Let's outsiders see just how big the Postgres community really is 3. Might entice others to get involved 4. Raises the Postgres profile in the market 5. Gives a more "professional" face to Postgres which it needs to jump to the next level Now, I understand the efforts involved in this, but I wanted to at least plant the seed. Derek Derek M. Rodner Director, Marketing EnterpriseDB Corporation 33 Wood Avenue, Second Floor Iselin, NJ 08830 732.331.1333 Jussi Mikkola wrote: > I think there are some very good points in this, and in this thread in > general. Atleast worth a few thoughts. > > First about the different domains. Yes, it is very much like different > brands. And what is good or bad in it? Well, those projects that are > not under the PostgreSQL umbrella, are not that official, and not > consider part of the "package". But, on the other hand, it could be > beneficial for the main project, if the "package" would contain things > like PgAdmin, Slony etc. I believe, that it would make the total > package more "valuable" in business terms. > > But, if those parts would be in the same package, then that would mean > more responsibility for the core. Someone would need to say that this > is beta, and this is ready. But that would be important for the users, > so it could be worth it. How it would be done, that would require some > talks between all those projects. But I can see, that the current core > could focus on the database itself, and then there could be another > organ that would look at all the joining parts. > > When those projects are clearly separate, it also means that there are > a lot of brands. And if we want to promote all these projects, it will > require additional effort. So, instead of making one strong brand, we > kind of try to make one brand, and then we try to promote also many > other brands that are necessary for the one brand. No focus. > > From the advocacy perspective I see joining projects under a common > umbrella as a very good idea. Of course, those other projects should > also see it beneficial, and it would probably require a lot of work to > make these projects more connected. But I am quite sure, that it would > at least make the advocacy part a lot easier. There would be more to > talk about, and the links would not be pointed out to third party > websites. > > Rgs, > > Jussi > > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Well that is a very good point, because I have always considered >>>> planetpostgresql not a part of the PostgreSQL project. I hadn't >>>> even considered that it is a postgresql project until just now. >>> >>> Just curious, but why does it have to be *.postgresql.org to be >>> considered official? Isn't official what we make it ... ? >> >> Absolutely not (unfortunately). Official is what people "perceive" is >> official. >> >> For a case and point, go to http://www.ximian.com or >> http://www.suse.com . You will note that they no longer exist and >> have been absorbed into Novell.com. >> >> The reason for this is to show an official integration, so that >> people are comfortable with the respective brands because they are >> comfortable with Novell. >> >> The same applies for our sub projects, until they are recognized >> under the official project domain name. They will always be >> considered third party. >> >>> The thing is, everyone spends their time putting pgFoundry down as >>> being 'second class' ... of course everyone else is going to >>> consider it such also ... it isn't second class, nor was it ever >>> meant to be ... if ppl promoted, pushed and advertised it more, it >>> would be as 'second class' as common to go to as CPAN is for Perl ... >> >> Perhaps the fact that everyone is putting down pgFoundry as second >> class is telling to the point that we need to promote it's >> perception? E.g; get it under projects.postgresql.org where it really >> belongs. >> >> And as Alvaro mentioned, the same should go for planet.postgresql.org . >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Joshua D. Drake >> >> >> > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend >
I think there are some very good points in this, and in this thread in general. Atleast worth a few thoughts. First about the different domains. Yes, it is very much like different brands. And what is good or bad in it? Well, those projects that are not under the PostgreSQL umbrella, are not that official, and not consider part of the "package". But, on the other hand, it could be beneficial for the main project, if the "package" would contain things like PgAdmin, Slony etc. I believe, that it would make the total package more "valuable" in business terms. But, if those parts would be in the same package, then that would mean more responsibility for the core. Someone would need to say that this is beta, and this is ready. But that would be important for the users, so it could be worth it. How it would be done, that would require some talks between all those projects. But I can see, that the current core could focus on the database itself, and then there could be another organ that would look at all the joining parts. When those projects are clearly separate, it also means that there are a lot of brands. And if we want to promote all these projects, it will require additional effort. So, instead of making one strong brand, we kind of try to make one brand, and then we try to promote also many other brands that are necessary for the one brand. No focus. From the advocacy perspective I see joining projects under a common umbrella as a very good idea. Of course, those other projects should also see it beneficial, and it would probably require a lot of work to make these projects more connected. But I am quite sure, that it would at least make the advocacy part a lot easier. There would be more to talk about, and the links would not be pointed out to third party websites. Rgs, Jussi Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>> >>> Well that is a very good point, because I have always considered >>> planetpostgresql not a part of the PostgreSQL project. I hadn't even >>> considered that it is a postgresql project until just now. >> >> Just curious, but why does it have to be *.postgresql.org to be >> considered official? Isn't official what we make it ... ? > > Absolutely not (unfortunately). Official is what people "perceive" is > official. > > For a case and point, go to http://www.ximian.com or > http://www.suse.com . You will note that they no longer exist and have > been absorbed into Novell.com. > > The reason for this is to show an official integration, so that people > are comfortable with the respective brands because they are > comfortable with Novell. > > The same applies for our sub projects, until they are recognized under > the official project domain name. They will always be considered third > party. > >> The thing is, everyone spends their time putting pgFoundry down as >> being 'second class' ... of course everyone else is going to consider >> it such also ... it isn't second class, nor was it ever meant to be >> ... if ppl promoted, pushed and advertised it more, it would be as >> 'second class' as common to go to as CPAN is for Perl ... > > Perhaps the fact that everyone is putting down pgFoundry as second > class is telling to the point that we need to promote it's perception? > E.g; get it under projects.postgresql.org where it really belongs. > > And as Alvaro mentioned, the same should go for planet.postgresql.org . > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > >