Re: On pgweb project (Re: Update on 'portal' changes)
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh@agliodbs.com]
Sent: 08 March 2004 20:56
To: Alexey Borzov
Cc: Dave Page; pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: On pgweb project (Re: [pgsql-www] Update on
'portal' changes)Alexey,
BTW, why doesn't gborg accept new members?
http://gborg.postgresql.org/member/memjoin.phpOoops! This was temporary while we were copying users to the
new PGFoundry; it needs to be turned back to regular with a warning.
Did I miss a thread? I can't find anything about a pgFoundry in my
archives. I assume it's Gforge based?
Regards, Dave
Dave,
Did I miss a thread? I can't find anything about a pgFoundry in my
archives. I assume it's Gforge based?
Yes. It's the whole GForge discussion on Hackers.
Hmmmm ... let me apologize for not directly addressing this list about the
"final plans" for GForge/pgFoundry, and try to remedy the situation now. I
spent so much time discussing this on Hackers that I failed to notice that
this list got cut off the CC before we reached a conclusion.
Marc, Chris Ryan, Andrew D. and the Core *have* been in the loop on this.
We've set up a new host, www.pgfoundry.org. This will hold our GForge
installation, to which we will be migrating GBorg projects as their owners
are ready to do so. We've already stopped accepting new GBorg projects.
Migration is painless and almost 100% automatic.
Within 1.5 weeks we should be offficially launching pgFoundry. Among other
things, at that time we'll be launching a contest to "re-theme" the foundry.
When portal is done, we can also discuss using some of the headers and
includes from portal to support site integration.
Anything else you need to know?
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
Please find the attached pgelephant.png as a replacement for
http://pgfoundry.org/images/pgelephant.png used in the pgFoundry ala
Savannah theme.
Gavin
Josh Berkus wrote:
Show quoted text
Dave,
Did I miss a thread? I can't find anything about a pgFoundry in my
archives. I assume it's Gforge based?Yes. It's the whole GForge discussion on Hackers.
Hmmmm ... let me apologize for not directly addressing this list about the
"final plans" for GForge/pgFoundry, and try to remedy the situation now. I
spent so much time discussing this on Hackers that I failed to notice that
this list got cut off the CC before we reached a conclusion.Marc, Chris Ryan, Andrew D. and the Core *have* been in the loop on this.
We've set up a new host, www.pgfoundry.org. This will hold our GForge
installation, to which we will be migrating GBorg projects as their owners
are ready to do so. We've already stopped accepting new GBorg projects.
Migration is painless and almost 100% automatic.Within 1.5 weeks we should be offficially launching pgFoundry. Among other
things, at that time we'll be launching a contest to "re-theme" the foundry.
When portal is done, we can also discuss using some of the headers and
includes from portal to support site integration.Anything else you need to know?
Attachments:
pgelephant.pngimage/png; name=pgelephant.pngDownload
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 15:03, Josh Berkus wrote:
Dave,
Did I miss a thread? I can't find anything about a pgFoundry in my
archives. I assume it's Gforge based?Yes. It's the whole GForge discussion on Hackers.
Hmmmm ... let me apologize for not directly addressing this list about the
"final plans" for GForge/pgFoundry, and try to remedy the situation now. I
spent so much time discussing this on Hackers that I failed to notice that
this list got cut off the CC before we reached a conclusion.Marc, Chris Ryan, Andrew D. and the Core *have* been in the loop on this.
We've set up a new host, www.pgfoundry.org. This will hold our GForge
installation, to which we will be migrating GBorg projects as their owners
are ready to do so. We've already stopped accepting new GBorg projects.
Migration is painless and almost 100% automatic.Within 1.5 weeks we should be offficially launching pgFoundry. Among other
things, at that time we'll be launching a contest to "re-theme" the foundry.
When portal is done, we can also discuss using some of the headers and
includes from portal to support site integration.Anything else you need to know?
Are you planning on running this along with the current website projects
(www/techdocs/etc...) or will this be independent? ie. There was
previous discussion of a projects.postgresql.net domain to be used for
this, is that deprecated? Also for theming, shouldn't it use the main
postgresql.org css ?
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert,
Are you planning on running this along with the current website projects
(www/techdocs/etc...) or will this be independent?
Independent. Gforge is 90% dynamic content, and as such it won't fit in with
the mirroring scheme for Portal.
ie. There was
previous discussion of a projects.postgresql.net domain to be used for
this, is that deprecated?
The guys (Andrew, Marc, etc.) liked www.pgfoundry.org more. Several other
addresses will be configured to point to this one.
Also for theming, shouldn't it use the main
postgresql.org css ?
Can't AFAIK, GForge is not xhtml/css-based. Gforge formatting is
database-centric.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
We've set up a new host, www.pgfoundry.org.
Why is it not part of postgresql.org? Seems like making it a different
domain will increase the perception of separateness from the core
project, which is something I thought we wanted to avoid.
regards, tom lane
Tom,
Why is it not part of postgresql.org? Seems like making it a different
domain will increase the perception of separateness from the core
part of postgresql.org was the original thought. But it messes with the
ability to give projects their own subdomains, i.e. slony.pgfoundry.org.
Marc, you want to remark on this?
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
Tom,
Why is it not part of postgresql.org? Seems like making it a different
domain will increase the perception of separateness from the corepart of postgresql.org was the original thought. But it messes with the
ability to give projects their own subdomains, i.e. slony.pgfoundry.org.Marc, you want to remark on this?
The original thought was to allocate the postgresql.net domain to the
GForge project, so that we could easily have jdbc.postgresql.net,
pgadmin3.postgresql.net, etc ... for individual "project web pages" ...
then the main site would be www.postgresql.net, but Andrew brought up the
point that it would raise confusion between it and postgresql.org, and
suggested going wiht something like pgfoundry.org for it ...
As to the "increase the perception of seperateness" ... with David
increasing awareness of, and promoting the use of, RSS feeds, and with
GForge having code in place already for doing this, we'll be able to tie
the pgfoundry site into the postgresql.org site quite effectively, I think
...
postgresql.org == the core / central project ... pgfoundry.org is all the
third party (ie. not part of the core distribution) applications and
interfaces that tie into and support the server itself ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
... we'll be able to tie the pgfoundry site into the postgresql.org
site quite effectively, I think ...
Okay, if you're happy with it ... it just seemed a bit at variance with our
discussions of a few weeks ago.
regards, tom lane
On Tuesday 09 March 2004 16:53, Josh Berkus wrote:
Robert,
Are you planning on running this along with the current website projects
(www/techdocs/etc...) or will this be independent?Independent. Gforge is 90% dynamic content, and as such it won't fit in
with the mirroring scheme for Portal.
even if doesnt fit into the mirroring scheme that doesnt mean it has to be
seperate.... techdocs/advocacy arnt mirrored... just wondering if discussion
on its development would take place here so everyone is in the loop... that
type of thing...
ie. There was
previous discussion of a projects.postgresql.net domain to be used for
this, is that deprecated?The guys (Andrew, Marc, etc.) liked www.pgfoundry.org more. Several other
addresses will be configured to point to this one.
hmm...from an advocacy point istm this would be a good place to play up the
postgresql brand, such that it is... but ce la vei i guess
Also for theming, shouldn't it use the main
postgresql.org css ?Can't AFAIK, GForge is not xhtml/css-based. Gforge formatting is
database-centric.
It uses css for sure... just a question of where its going to pull it from...
if they want to be seperate though i guess a different look/feel would be the
way to go. (It's just counter to what people have complained about in the
past with gborg...)
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert,
It uses css for sure... just a question of where its going to pull it
from...
if they want to be seperate though i guess a different look/feel would be
the
way to go. (It's just counter to what people have complained about in the
past with gborg...)
Well, when Portal *has* a look that everyone agrees on, then someone can shape
that CSS so that pgFoundry can use it.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
--- Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
-- snip --even if doesnt fit into the mirroring scheme that doesnt mean it has
to be
seperate.... techdocs/advocacy arnt mirrored... just wondering if
discussion
on its development would take place here so everyone is in the
loop... that
type of thing...
-- snip --
I would say in regards to the CVS issue specifically that there
should be little to no content that should be put into CVS in regard to
the actual site of GForge. The reason I say this is because most to all
of the code should be straight GForge code. The exception to this would
be the files related to the themes and config. Outside of that you are
defeating the purpose of switching to GForge, which is to not have to
develop a project hosting infrastructure.
Chris Ryan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you���re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Robert Treat wrote:
The guys (Andrew, Marc, etc.) liked www.pgfoundry.org more. Several other
addresses will be configured to point to this one.hmm...from an advocacy point istm this would be a good place to play up the
postgresql brand, such that it is... but ce la vei i guess
There is nothing stop'ng having www.postgresql.net (or
projects.postgresql.org) pointing to it, and just using the pgfoundry.org
for the project web pages themselves ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Josh Berkus wrote:
Marc, Chris Ryan, Andrew D. and the Core *have* been in the loop on
this.
It's curious that these decisions are now made behind closed doors
without the involvement of the people who will actually be using this
service.
There once was a time when core said "we don't do anything" and
development infrastructure was discussed on -hackers and web site
infrastructure was discussed in this list.
My perception is that this new service will be no better or worse than
the previous one, and the confusion of the users and the fragmentation
of the PostgreSQL project will continue on its path.
Peter,
My perception is that this new service will be no better or worse than
the previous one, and the confusion of the users and the fragmentation
of the PostgreSQL project will continue on its path.
Gforge was discussed for over a week on Hackers. You didn't speak up then;
it's a bit late to speak up now. I didn't see any serious objections to
moving to GForge and did see a number of positive responses from project
leaders.
One of the inspirations for moving to GForge was specifically your and Dave
Cramer's comments about the difficulty of finding important PostgreSQL
accessories. Since you did not see fit to propose a solution to that
situation, we invented our own.
You can't simply run around objecting to everything, Peter, and expect people
to take you seriously. Constructive suggestions are far more likely to
produce results.
The only thing which was not discussed was the domain, which we regarded as
incidental to the installation, which I already mentioned, and I apologize
for not figuring out that people would have an opinion about it. Now that
it's been registered, though, nobody has proposed a compelling alternative,
so I don't see any reason to change things.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote:
The only thing which was not discussed was the domain, which we
regarded as incidental to the installation, which I already
mentioned, and I apologize for not figuring out that people would
have an opinion about it.
That was my point and evidently you were mistaken. If the domain name
were incidental, then we might as well have stuck with gborg, because
that is what many people are used to.
Everybody had agreed to <project>.postgresql.net, and now it's gone
without explanation.
Peter,
Everybody had agreed to <project>.postgresql.net, and now it's gone
without explanation.
Oh! Well, if that's what you want, why didn't you say so? We can certainly
change things since it's not official yet.
Like I said, I wasn't clear that there was a consensus for the postgresql.net
scheme. Can other people speak up about this?
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
Everybody had agreed to <project>.postgresql.net, and now it's gone
without explanation.
Like I said, I wasn't clear that there was a consensus for the postgresql.net
scheme. Can other people speak up about this?
AFAIR that was proposed and not objected to, so I guess it has about as
much "consensus" as anything does around here.
regards, tom lane
On Thursday 11 March 2004 14:55, Josh Berkus wrote:
Peter,
Everybody had agreed to <project>.postgresql.net, and now it's gone
without explanation.Oh! Well, if that's what you want, why didn't you say so? We can
certainly change things since it's not official yet.Like I said, I wasn't clear that there was a consensus for the
postgresql.net scheme. Can other people speak up about this?
I thought I did speak up...
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
