Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Infrastructure TODO list

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-www-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-www-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Neil Conway
> Sent: 30 September 2004 05:09
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: PostgreSQL www; PostgreSQL advocacy
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] [pgsql-advocacy] Infrastructure TODO list
>
> On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 07:15, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > At a minimum I think we need an infrastructure TODO list
>
> I think that's a good idea.

Having just had the fun of reading all of this in one straight go (and
approving the cross-list posts at the same time), the only todo items
that actually seem to have any relevance or make any real sense are:

1) Install the updated fsck, so that if it does have to be run, it
doesn't take forever.
2) Update to the new website.

The second of which of course, has nothing to do with the server
reliability problem (and should be discussed on pgsql-www under an
appropriate thread /if/ people are willing to help rather than just tell
us to move to product X). As someone else pointed out (was it Tom?), all
the uninformed debating here just slows things down.

All the other issues are/have been worked on:

1) Search is now hosted on a pair of servers in .au, run by John Hansen.
2) The primary ftp site is on a high bandwidth, US based server. There
are ample mirrors around the world.
3) The primary website is being round-robined to some of the high
bandwidth mirrors. This is ongoing.
4) The archives are moving to a server provided by CommandPrompt. This
is happening as this discussion goes on.
5) Virtually all served content, bar some interactive stuff is served
(and mirrored) as static HTML.
6) The list servers are distributed regionally, with hub.org merely
providing the lists themselves and the central distribution server.

Now much as I like a good debate, can we please at least stop going over
old ground - my mailers getting worn out approving all these
non-subscriber posts!! :-)

Regards, Dave.