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: | 2006-01-17 00:49:41 |
Message-ID: | 200601161949.41925.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
On Monday 16 January 2006 18:59, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Robert Treat wrote:
> > 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...
>
> to be totally honest, since it appears that there are no reasons why it
> can't be moved over to the existing server that was bought up for it,
> pgFoundry *could* be moved over to that tomorrow *shrug*
>
> The question has never been about moving it ... the problem, as far as I
> know, is that there seems to be a desire/requirement to do two steps in
> one: move pgfoundry to the new server *at the same time* as upgrading
> gForge to the latest version ... its not something I necessarily subscribe
> to, but JoshB was pushing for that one ...
>
*sigh* you ask the software guys what the problem is and they say hardware/os.
you ask the hardware/os guy what the problem is and he says software. You ask
joshua and he says first week of february. sounds like we should go cmd/linux
to me
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-01-17 00:52:16 | Re: pgsql-committers shouldn't be the default "developers" |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2006-01-17 00:43:37 | Re: PgFoundry Move |