pgfoundry references in docs
Attached are two patches, one of which I'd like to apply. Open for
discussion on which one.
The smaller one, pgfoundry_1.diff, removes the suggestion to apply for
new projects on pgfoundry. The reason for this being that pgfoundry
doesn't *accept* new projects anymore.
The second one removes the reference to pgfoundry completely. As a
step in the deprecation.
I'd prefer to apply the second one, but will settle for the first one
if people object ;)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Attachments:
pgfoundry_1.diffapplication/octet-stream; name=pgfoundry_1.diffDownload
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/external-projects.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/external-projects.sgml
index bc4a218..8a1902c 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/external-projects.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/external-projects.sgml
@@ -15,12 +15,7 @@
have created <ulink url="http://www.pgfoundry.org/">PgFoundry</ulink>, a
website that provides hosting for <productname>PostgreSQL</>-related
projects that are maintained outside the core <productname>PostgreSQL</>
- distribution. PgFoundry is built using the GForge software project and is
- similar to <ulink url="http://sourceforge.net">SourceForge.net</> in its
- feature set, providing mailing lists, forums, bug tracking, SCM, and web
- hosting. If you have a <productname>PostgreSQL</>-related open source
- project that you would like to have hosted at PgFoundry, please feel free
- to create a new project there.
+ distribution.
</para>
<sect1 id="external-interfaces">
pgfoundry_2.diffapplication/octet-stream; name=pgfoundry_2.diffDownload
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/external-projects.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/external-projects.sgml
index bc4a218..fc9ac2e 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/external-projects.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/external-projects.sgml
@@ -10,19 +10,6 @@
efficiently developed separately from the core project.
</para>
- <para>
- To help our community with the development of their external projects, we
- have created <ulink url="http://www.pgfoundry.org/">PgFoundry</ulink>, a
- website that provides hosting for <productname>PostgreSQL</>-related
- projects that are maintained outside the core <productname>PostgreSQL</>
- distribution. PgFoundry is built using the GForge software project and is
- similar to <ulink url="http://sourceforge.net">SourceForge.net</> in its
- feature set, providing mailing lists, forums, bug tracking, SCM, and web
- hosting. If you have a <productname>PostgreSQL</>-related open source
- project that you would like to have hosted at PgFoundry, please feel free
- to create a new project there.
- </para>
-
<sect1 id="external-interfaces">
<title>Client Interfaces</title>
On Jul 3, 2012, at 9:20 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
The smaller one, pgfoundry_1.diff, removes the suggestion to apply for
new projects on pgfoundry. The reason for this being that pgfoundry
doesn't *accept* new projects anymore.
Should you not perhaps recommend that they go somewhere else?
David
On 3 July 2012 20:20, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
The second one removes the reference to pgfoundry completely. As a
step in the deprecation.I'd prefer to apply the second one, but will settle for the first one
if people object ;)
I'd also prefer if you applied the second one.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
On Tuesday, July 3, 2012, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 3 July 2012 20:20, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net <javascript:;>>
wrote:The second one removes the reference to pgfoundry completely. As a
step in the deprecation.I'd prefer to apply the second one, but will settle for the first one
if people object ;)I'd also prefer if you applied the second one.
+1
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
On Tuesday, July 3, 2012, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On 3 July 2012 20:20, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
The second one removes the reference to pgfoundry completely. As a
step in the deprecation.I'd prefer to apply the second one, but will settle for the first one
if people object ;)I'd also prefer if you applied the second one.
+1
Since all those who commented preferred that option, I've applied that patch.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:01 PM, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
On Jul 3, 2012, at 9:20 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
The smaller one, pgfoundry_1.diff, removes the suggestion to apply for
new projects on pgfoundry. The reason for this being that pgfoundry
doesn't *accept* new projects anymore.Should you not perhaps recommend that they go somewhere else?
Not really. We have nowhere else to recommend, since we don't run a
replacement for it. And we really don't want to get involved in
listing all the different third party sites out there. (For example,
we had a reference to sourceforge.net in the same paragraph. And while
that was certainly "state of the art" when the docs were written, I
don't think anybody sane would recommend that today. The reality keeps
changing on those things, so it really doesn't belong in the docs). We
could put a set of links on the wiki if we want something "more live".
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Attached are two patches, one of which I'd like to apply. Open for
discussion on which one.The smaller one, pgfoundry_1.diff, removes the suggestion to apply for
new projects on pgfoundry. The reason for this being that pgfoundry
doesn't *accept* new projects anymore.The second one removes the reference to pgfoundry completely. As a
step in the deprecation.I'd prefer to apply the second one, but will settle for the first one
if people object ;)
Well, I don't object to the documentation change, but I have a problem
with the fact.
Are there any other places that could be recommended for hosting
my pgFoundry projects?
If yes, that should be mentioned in the documentation.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at> wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Attached are two patches, one of which I'd like to apply. Open for
discussion on which one.The smaller one, pgfoundry_1.diff, removes the suggestion to apply for
new projects on pgfoundry. The reason for this being that pgfoundry
doesn't *accept* new projects anymore.The second one removes the reference to pgfoundry completely. As a
step in the deprecation.I'd prefer to apply the second one, but will settle for the first one
if people object ;)Well, I don't object to the documentation change, but I have a problem
with the fact.Are there any other places that could be recommended for hosting
my pgFoundry projects?
If yes, that should be mentioned in the documentation.
Exiting pgfoundry projects are perfectly safe for now - but *new*
projects are not accepted.
There is a project underway (for a *long* time - it keeps getting
stalled) working on migration paths. Until such paths are available
and documented, existing projects will still be safe on pgfoundry.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Jul 4, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Not really. We have nowhere else to recommend, since we don't run a
replacement for it. And we really don't want to get involved in
listing all the different third party sites out there. (For example,
we had a reference to sourceforge.net in the same paragraph. And while
that was certainly "state of the art" when the docs were written, I
don't think anybody sane would recommend that today. The reality keeps
changing on those things, so it really doesn't belong in the docs). We
could put a set of links on the wiki if we want something "more live".
Ah, then perhaps a link to such a wiki page would suffice. I think that would be a good compromise.
David
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM, David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> wrote:
On Jul 4, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Not really. We have nowhere else to recommend, since we don't run a
replacement for it. And we really don't want to get involved in
listing all the different third party sites out there. (For example,
we had a reference to sourceforge.net in the same paragraph. And while
that was certainly "state of the art" when the docs were written, I
don't think anybody sane would recommend that today. The reality keeps
changing on those things, so it really doesn't belong in the docs). We
could put a set of links on the wiki if we want something "more live".Ah, then perhaps a link to such a wiki page would suffice. I think that would be a good compromise.
That can really be said for all of Appendix H in that case...
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/