Subject: Re: gforge

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:37:37 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Treat [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 26 November 2003 20:16
> To: Dave Page; Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] gforge
> 
> On Wednesday 26 November 2003 11:00, Dave Page wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Mainly because we prefer the traditional mailing lists + 
> CVS approach 
> > like the core server uses. We also have a multilanguage 
> website that 
> > gborg can't do, but then I'm not sure that sf.net can either (for 
> > example).
> >
> 
> I'm pretty sure you could do your multilingual support on sf, 
> though I'd need to look at your code to know for sure. sf 
> gives you a standard user account ish web directory so its 
> pretty flexible; the only big downside that I ever saw was 
> they only give folks access to mysql databases, not 
> postgresql :-( As for standard mailing lists / cvs approach, 
> theres no reason you couldnt approach a sourceforge project 
> the same way.
> 
> BTW - I've been meaning to ask why don't we use the pgadmin 
> code's language approach for the main website?

The design doesn't lend itself to a site the size of www.postgresql.org.
It's all done using php's gettext implementation, which is fine in
itself, but every html page is a mass of gettext calls, one for each
paragraph for maximum flexibility. That's fine on that site where there
are only about 6 pages, but we have around 10000 on www.postgresql.org.

> > Probably better people to ask would be Robert or Chris K-L, as they 
> > actively chose sf.net as an alternative to GBorg.
> >
> 
> I think the original rational for it was that great bridge 
> had shut things down, so things were switched to sourceforge 
> and when gborg came up there was no reason to switch back.  
> 
> speaking from a personal standpoint as someone who is a 
> member of projects on both sites and has looked at the 
> backend code for both sites, I do feel the sourceforge code 
> is superior to the gborg code. 

I'm sure sf.net has a lot more (paid) resources to put into it. From my
pov, I find sf.net to be over complex and confusing, but maybe that's
just me...

> from a project standpoint I 
> think the information is laid out better both per project and 
> on the site as a whole... for example the is no way to search 
> for a specific project on gborg.. another example is the urls 
> for each given project, compare:
> http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/pgweb/projdisplay.php
> vs. http://sourceforge.net/projects/phppgadmin/

You can omit the projdisplay.php, and I'm sure that 'projects' could be
symlinked to 'project'

Regards, Dave.

---

From: Chris Ryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:26:09 -0800 (PST)

With respect to GBorg vs GForge, or any other project hosting site
infrastructure for that matter, it is my firm belief that you should do
what is best for the PostgreSQL community. Which is best? I am sure
everyone will have their own opinions about that along with the merits
and disadvantages to each choice. If the choice is made to move away
from GBorg I would fully understand and offer my assistance in any
migration effort possible to another system.

    As for the direct development and maintenance of GBorg I often just
simply lack the time to do anything beyond simple maintenance and some
of the smaller enhancements requested by users. One of my biggest
things I've been wanting to do it enhance the admin screens for project
approval and turn that over to this list in the same manner that the
news and events is currently done. If GBorg is to stay around some
changes like that would be great to try and involve more people than
just myself into the process. I could also come up with a list of
things people have asked for in the past that could be worked on.

    If GBorg stays it will need effort and participation from the
community in order to make it into a better development platform. That
is not something I can do by my self.

    In an effort to fix a mistake I have probably made from the
beginning I would like to announce that I do not claim control over the
vision or future of GBorg. I have always tried to do what was desired
by others in the effort to make GBorg useful to the PostgreSQL
community. If the pgsql-www group wants to claim control of the vision
I would encourage it does so.

Chris Ryan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:39:29 -0800

Chris,

> is not something I can do by my self.

Well, the main reason to move toward GForge is that it is being actively 
maintained and improved by  an outside community of people, while you've been 
on your lonesome for some time.     Given the number of other projects for 
which we need more people, I personally don't see anyone having the time to 
put in the work GBorg needs to "catch up" any time soon.

So my personal questions for you are:  a) what do you, personally, think about 
Gforge's architecture, community, and future?  b) how does gforge stack up 
against Sourceforge in your opinion?  c) if we switch away from GBorg, will 
that be the end of your involvement in the community, or are there other 
things you want to work on?

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:40:05 -0400 (AST)

IMHO ... I would personally love to avoid having to move, for exactly the
reasons that several people of put forth, but largely, migrating projects
from one to the other *would* be a nightmare (doable, but painful) ...

So, if it is/were possible to build up a team to push development of GBorg
forward, that would be teh optimal solution ...

> I would encourage it does so.

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email-masked]           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

---

From: Chris Ryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:49:59 -0800 (PST)

Resent reply to include pgsql-www list:

> GfGforge architecture, community, and future?  b) how does gfgforge>
stack up 
> against SoSourceforgen your opinion?  c) if we switch away from
> GBGBorgwill 

Answers:
a) I have not reviews GFGForgeny further then looking at what Marc
installed on gfgforgopostgresqlrorgnd what is up on
wwwwwfgforgerorgWith that said from the surface it's ararchitecureooks
to be similar to Source Forges, the community has a fairly high profile
individual who was also an original member of SoSourceforgether than
that I really can't say.

b) Everything I have seen looks like GFGForgeunctions the same of
SoSourceforgeut again it's hard to say since I have not spent much time
on either of those sites over the years.

c) If the choice was made to move away from GBGBorghen I would probably
end my direct involvement in the community after any migration had
taken place. This does not mean I wowouldn be open to participating in
the community on future efforts. I have always and will always use and
advocate PoPostgreSQLhen I can in my places of work and on other
projects.

Chris Ryan

---

From: Chris Ryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:01:38 -0800 (PST)

I must be having a bad email day! The garbled text quoted below the
message is exactly why you do not want to use the back arrow to try and
edit a message for resending from the spell checker of mail.yahoo.com.
:( Here is the message corrected -- again.

a) I have not reviewed GForge any further then looking at what Marc
installed on gforge.postgresql.org and what is up on www.gforge.org.
With that said from the surface it's architecture looks to be similar
to SourceForge's, the community has a fairly high profile individual
who was also an original member of SoSourceforge. Other than that I
really can't say.
 
b) Everything I have seen looks like GFGForgeunctions the same of
Sourceforge but again it's hard to say since I have not spent much time
 on either of those sites over the years.
 
c) If the choice was made to move away from GBorg then I would probably
end my direct involvement in the community after any migration had
taken place. This does not mean I wouldn't be open to participating in
the community on future efforts. I have always and will always use and
advocate PostgreSQL when I can in my places of work and on other
projects.

Chris "did i finally get it right" Ryan