X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965BAD1B4C5
	for <pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:29:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 41765-07
	for <pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:29:53 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4164D1D23E
	for <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:29:46 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i2BKTTeH001602;
	Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:29:29 -0500 (EST)
To: josh@agliodbs.com
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgFoundry 
In-reply-to: <200403111155.09851.josh@agliodbs.com> 
References: <03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B889F5DD@mail.vale-housing.co.uk>
	<200403111114.33954.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<200403112038.56027.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<200403111155.09851.josh@agliodbs.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
	message dated "Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:55:09 -0800"
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:29:29 -0500
Message-ID: <1601.1079036969@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 200403/143
X-Sequence-Number: 3959

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> Everybody had agreed to <project>.postgresql.net, and now it's gone 
>> without explanation.

> Like I said, I wasn't clear that there was a consensus for the postgresql.net
> scheme.   Can other people speak up about this?

AFAIR that was proposed and not objected to, so I guess it has about as
much "consensus" as anything does around here.

			regards, tom lane