Re: pgFoundry

On Fri, 6 May 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

>>
>> Personally, this is a problem. It's another 2 months away. In that time,
>> I think we
>> also need to focus on getting rid of gborg and redirecting people to
>> pgFoundry.
>> But can the current setup handle the load, and can we get the move from
>> gborg done?
>> Also is the upgrade path for moving servers easy, if it is it's probably
>> more reason to
>> push for the full closure of gborg.
>
> Gborg is considered deprecated. The projects that are there may or may not
> move. Although the goal it to get them to.
>
> Also at this point Gborg has nothing to do with the initial question. I am
> not asking about Gborg. I am asking why we are not placed PostgreSQL at the
> core of what is supposed to be the PostgreSQL Projects website, pgFoundry.

This has been discussed several times before ... pgFoundry offers us
nothing that we don't already have, and takes away several things ...
also, with pgFoundry moving 'State side', it has one more check against
moving the core project over to it ...

With PostgreSQL *not* US based, we are not subject to the whim's of the US
government, nor its export restrictions, nor its lawyers ...

This is one of those "check the archives, its been discussed before" kinda
threads ;(

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664