Re: Updating Sourceforge

On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:

> On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On 11 April 2013 19:50, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>>>>> We again don't have anyone updating Sourceforge:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/pgsql/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The posted version is 9.0. I again suggest we remove it.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I again second this suggestion.
>>>>
>>>> Thirded.
>>>
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>> This is a form of advocacy for the project, just like listing anywhere else.
>>
>> Is it really? Does anybody care about sourceforge these days?
>>
>> And is it good advocacy if people go there and download old versions?
>>
>>> Putting correct and useful information out there is what we should be trying
>>> to do more of, not less.
>>>
>>> I completely agree that you guys shouldn't do it, but that doesn't mean
>>> nobody does it at all.
>>
>>
>> We are clearly not capable of keeping the sourceforge records up to date.
>>
>> We've had multiple different people in charge of it, and it has
>> *never* been updated on time more than once after a new person picks
>> it up. In this case, it's clearly lacking by *years*.
>>
>> We do have the same issue at freshmeat, but at least there is no
>> *code* uploaded there.
>>
>>
>>> I'll arrange it, if you don't object.
>>
>> While I don't trust you any less than the previous people who have
>> volunteered to maintain this and then failed one or two releases
>> later, I personally think we've reached the point where we should just
>> accept that we can't do it, and get rid of it. We can keep switching
>> maintainers, but in the end, I don't think it's worth it.
>>
>> That's IMO, of course, others may vary.
>
> While I do agree with Simon in that it is an avenue for increased visibility of the PG project, the track record of keeping the info up-to-date is poor - even looking at the older versions of files listed, the releases were not kept up to date.
>
> With that said, if Sourceforge has some sort of API that we could plug into and just write a request to upload new releases for PG to, it may be worthwhile. But if we cannot automate it, I don't think it's worthwhile.

We would be able to script it - SourceForge provides an SSH interface for updating files: http://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/SSH/ and http://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/Files/