Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Thomas Swan <tswan(at)idigx(dot)com>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
Date: 2004-03-12 18:36:47
Message-ID: 11654.1079116607@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-www

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is
> available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain
> "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ...

I agree we don't want <project>.postgresql.org, as that is likely to
risk name conflicts. However, that objection doesn't apply to
<project>.projects.postgresql.org, or variants of that. So far the only
objection I've heard to that sort of setup is "the domain name is too
long", and as others have pointed out, it's a weak objection.

Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both
<project>.pgfoundry.org
<project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org
point to the same place?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2004-03-12 18:38:22 Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2004-03-12 18:35:02 Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2004-03-12 18:38:22 Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2004-03-12 18:35:02 Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.