| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org, gforge-admins(at)pgfoundry(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PgFoundry Move |
| Date: | 2006-01-16 23:36:37 |
| Message-ID: | 200601161836.37704.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
On Monday 16 January 2006 16:48, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Robert Treat wrote:
> > based on my interaction with the foundry admins, afaict the single thing
> > stopping us from getting pgfoundry onto a new server is that we're
> > trying to do it on bsd (reread fetters' email for a good synopisis of
> > this). At what point do we decide moving forward is more important than
> > the os we are putting it on?
>
> Never,
we never decide that moving forward is more important than the os... that
explains some things....
> cause the longer it takes to move it, the less requirement there is
> to move it as I bring on better/more powerful servers *shrug*
>
> Within the next month or so, we'll have a new 64bit server going online,
> which I'll be able to move pgfoundry over to that has faster drives and
> more memory *shrug*
>
So if we procrastinate^h^h^hcan just hold out for another 2 months we can be
completely up and running with gforge on a quality dedicated bsd machine?
Cause I think we can be up and running in month on a linux box... now i dont
have anything against bsd so if you only need one extra month I'm happy with
that, but if you come back in three and say you need two more...
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2006-01-16 23:40:20 | Re: [HACKERS] source documentation tool doxygen |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-01-16 23:32:07 | Re: [HACKERS] source documentation tool doxygen |