Re: pgfoundry references in docs

Attached are two patches, one of which I'd like to apply. Open for
discussion on which one.

The smaller one, pgfoundry_1.diff, removes the suggestion to apply for
new projects on pgfoundry. The reason for this being that pgfoundry
doesn't *accept* new projects anymore.

The second one removes the reference to pgfoundry completely. As a
step in the deprecation.

I'd prefer to apply the second one, but will settle for the first one
if people object ;)

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Jul 3, 2012, at 9:20 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> The smaller one, pgfoundry_1.diff, removes the suggestion to apply for
> new projects on pgfoundry. The reason for this being that pgfoundry
> doesn't *accept* new projects anymore.

Should you not perhaps recommend that they go somewhere else?

David

On 3 July 2012 20:20, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> The second one removes the reference to pgfoundry completely. As a
> step in the deprecation.
>
> I'd prefer to apply the second one, but will settle for the first one
> if people object ;)

I'd also prefer if you applied the second one.

--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

On Tuesday, July 3, 2012, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

> On 3 July 2012 20:20, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > The second one removes the reference to pgfoundry completely. As a
> > step in the deprecation.
> >
> > I'd prefer to apply the second one, but will settle for the first one
> > if people object ;)
>
> I'd also prefer if you applied the second one.
>

+1

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 3, 2012, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>
>> On 3 July 2012 20:20, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> > The second one removes the reference to pgfoundry completely. As a
>> > step in the deprecation.
>> >
>> > I'd prefer to apply the second one, but will settle for the first one
>> > if people object ;)
>>
>> I'd also prefer if you applied the second one.
>
>
> +1

Since all those who commented preferred that option, I've applied that patch.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:01 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 9:20 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> The smaller one, pgfoundry_1.diff, removes the suggestion to apply for
>> new projects on pgfoundry. The reason for this being that pgfoundry
>> doesn't *accept* new projects anymore.
>
> Should you not perhaps recommend that they go somewhere else?

Not really. We have nowhere else to recommend, since we don't run a
replacement for it. And we really don't want to get involved in
listing all the different third party sites out there. (For example,
we had a reference to sourceforge.net in the same paragraph. And while
that was certainly "state of the art" when the docs were written, I
don't think anybody sane would recommend that today. The reality keeps
changing on those things, so it really doesn't belong in the docs). We
could put a set of links on the wiki if we want something "more live".

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Attached are two patches, one of which I'd like to apply. Open for
> discussion on which one.
>
> The smaller one, pgfoundry_1.diff, removes the suggestion to apply for
> new projects on pgfoundry. The reason for this being that pgfoundry
> doesn't *accept* new projects anymore.
>
> The second one removes the reference to pgfoundry completely. As a
> step in the deprecation.
>
> I'd prefer to apply the second one, but will settle for the first one
> if people object ;)

Well, I don't object to the documentation change, but I have a problem
with the fact.

Are there any other places that could be recommended for hosting
my pgFoundry projects?
If yes, that should be mentioned in the documentation.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Attached are two patches, one of which I'd like to apply. Open for
>> discussion on which one.
>>
>> The smaller one, pgfoundry_1.diff, removes the suggestion to apply for
>> new projects on pgfoundry. The reason for this being that pgfoundry
>> doesn't *accept* new projects anymore.
>>
>> The second one removes the reference to pgfoundry completely. As a
>> step in the deprecation.
>>
>> I'd prefer to apply the second one, but will settle for the first one
>> if people object ;)
>
> Well, I don't object to the documentation change, but I have a problem
> with the fact.
>
> Are there any other places that could be recommended for hosting
> my pgFoundry projects?
> If yes, that should be mentioned in the documentation.

Exiting pgfoundry projects are perfectly safe for now - but *new*
projects are not accepted.

There is a project underway (for a *long* time - it keeps getting
stalled) working on migration paths. Until such paths are available
and documented, existing projects will still be safe on pgfoundry.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Jul 4, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> Not really. We have nowhere else to recommend, since we don't run a
> replacement for it. And we really don't want to get involved in
> listing all the different third party sites out there. (For example,
> we had a reference to sourceforge.net in the same paragraph. And while
> that was certainly "state of the art" when the docs were written, I
> don't think anybody sane would recommend that today. The reality keeps
> changing on those things, so it really doesn't belong in the docs). We
> could put a set of links on the wiki if we want something "more live".

Ah, then perhaps a link to such a wiki page would suffice. I think that would be a good compromise.

David

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> Not really. We have nowhere else to recommend, since we don't run a
>> replacement for it. And we really don't want to get involved in
>> listing all the different third party sites out there. (For example,
>> we had a reference to sourceforge.net in the same paragraph. And while
>> that was certainly "state of the art" when the docs were written, I
>> don't think anybody sane would recommend that today. The reality keeps
>> changing on those things, so it really doesn't belong in the docs). We
>> could put a set of links on the wiki if we want something "more live".
>
> Ah, then perhaps a link to such a wiki page would suffice. I think that would be a good compromise.

That can really be said for all of Appendix H in that case...
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/