From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com
Organization: Aglio Database Solutions
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: pgFoundry
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:14:33 -0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
Cc: <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
References: <03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B889F5DD@mail.vale-housing.co.uk>
	<200403091203.04152.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<200403111243.31061.peter_e@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <200403111243.31061.peter_e@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200403111114.33954.josh@agliodbs.com>

Peter,

> My perception is that this new service will be no better or worse than 
> the previous one, and the confusion of the users and the fragmentation 
> of the PostgreSQL project will continue on its path.

Gforge was discussed for over a week on Hackers.    You didn't speak up then; 
it's a bit late to speak up now.   I didn't see any serious objections to 
moving to GForge and did see a number of positive responses from project 
leaders.   

One of the inspirations for moving to GForge was specifically your and Dave 
Cramer's comments about the difficulty of finding important PostgreSQL 
accessories.  Since you did not see fit to propose a solution to that 
situation, we invented our own. 

You can't simply run around objecting to everything, Peter, and expect people 
to take you seriously.   Constructive suggestions are far more likely to 
produce results.

The only thing which was not discussed was the domain, which we regarded as 
incidental to the installation, which I already mentioned, and I apologize 
for not figuring out that people would have an opinion about it.   Now that 
it's been registered, though, nobody has proposed a compelling alternative, 
so I don't see any reason to change things.

-- 
-Josh Berkus
 Aglio Database Solutions
 San Francisco