Re: More nuclear options

On Tuesday 11 July 2006 14:05, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Robert,
>
> > Given the current number of projects that have no code / files / anything
> > associated with them on pgfoundry/gborg right now, this argument rings a
> > little hollow.
>
> If you're so keen to add to the problem, you can have my spot as
> pgfoundry admin.
>

No need to fly off the handle there Josh.

> Otherwise, the rule that the pgfoundry admins agreed on is that if a
> project had no code and no activity in 6 months we would contact the
> owner, and if no response kill it. That we've been lagging behind on
> this is a manpower issue (and to some degree a technical issue with
> GForge).

No code, or no active code development? Seems there is an important
difference that plays in here... looking a m-SQL it has code and could be a
starting point for someone who was looking for that. I'll grant that tips
doesn't look like much more than an article stub... it should probably be
moved to the new techdocs rather than pgfoundry.

>
> > People do get pointed at adddepends even today... certainly no one will
> > do anything with these projects if you nuke them, but I like giving
> > people options... your call though.
>
> I've already added adddepends to pgFoundry (as "Old PG Upgrade"), since
> people spoke up for it. I will assign one of them as admin of the
> project (not sure who yet).
>
> However, in the last year nobody has spoken up for the other three, not
> even you.
>

Perhaps no one knew they needed to speak up... perhaps people couldn't even
find them in contrib... how many people still ask if we have full text
indexing? contrib isn't exactly the most visible place...

All I am saying is that it couldn't hurt to put the information out there...
we're not hurting for disk space and none of this stuff appears inherently
wrong, just outdated, but it might still prove useful for some people.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL