| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: inclusions WAS: Increased company involvement |
| Date: | 2005-05-04 17:21:35 |
| Message-ID: | 4279049F.4060102@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> It's entirely likely that we haven't figured out how to make pgfoundry
> work yet. But figure it out we must, or the project-as-a-whole will die
> of its own weight. Not everything can be part of the core.
PgFoundry is coming along in its own right. I see three main problems
with it at current:
1. It looks like a separate project from PostgreSQL (website, name, etc...)
2. Stability and speed (which is currently being resolved)
3. Gborg still exists (which is going away once number 2 is resolved).
The traffic on pgFoundry is increasing as are the projects being
submitted. I don't think there is an issue of pgFoundry being a success
as much as an issue of it being a success as part of the PostgreSQL
project itself.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin M. Roy | 2005-05-04 17:30:43 | Re: inclusions WAS: Increased company involvement |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-05-04 17:21:20 | Re: inclusions WAS: Increased company involvement |