public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Dave Page <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Kennisgres-pgdn] RE: Mailing list, Joint PostgreSQL Knowledge Base
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:30:57 -0000
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)



-----Original Message-----
From: "Josh Berkus"<[email protected]>
Sent: 03/12/05 21:05:59
To: "Dave Page"<[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>, "[email protected]"<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Kennisgres-pgdn] RE: Mailing list, Joint PostgreSQL Knowledge Base

> Huh?   I don't get it.  How does "part of www.postgresql.org" contradict 
> that?

It doesn't, but kb.postgresql.org would as it would be a separate site. I don't object to something like that being proposed, but given the previous decision (which goes back to around the launch of the previous www site iirc), it should be proposed in the right place.

Of course, that doesn't mean that this group cannot decide whether or not to make that proposal.

Regards, Dave

-----Unmodified Original Message-----
Dave,

> > 1) Should be part of www.postgresql.org or be kb.postgresql.org.
>
> Aside from being a dubious "business requirement" imho, I should remind
> you that a decision was made long ago by the community to merge all the
> postgresql.org subsites together, and not to create new ones. Reviewing
> and potentially overturning that decision is definitely not something
> for this forum.

Huh?   I don't get it.  How does "part of www.postgresql.org" contradict 
that?

-- 
--Josh Berkus

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Project Core Team
www.postgresql.org

(all opinions expressed are my own; I do not speak
 for the Project unless specifically noted.)

view thread (5+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: [Kennisgres-pgdn] RE: Mailing list, Joint PostgreSQL Knowledge Base
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox