public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Frank Wiles <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[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: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:02:00 -0600
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<1079112222.736.5.camel@jester>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:36:47 -0500
Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <[email protected]> writes:
> > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ...
> > postgresql.net is available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we
> > are keeping that domain"clean" for any future stuff we want to do
> > with the core project ...
> 
> I agree we don't want <project>.postgresql.org, as that is likely to
> risk name conflicts.  However, that objection doesn't apply to
> <project>.projects.postgresql.org, or variants of that.  So far the
> only objection I've heard to that sort of setup is "the domain name is
> too long", and as others have pointed out, it's a weak objection.
> 
> Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
> dual-naming the project sites?  That is, have both
> 	<project>.pgfoundry.org
> 	<project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org
> point to the same place?

  My first vote would have been for postgresql.net, but I think 
  <project>.projects.postgresql.org makes the most sense.  If I wasn't
  "in the know" I wouldn't associate
  <something>.pgfoundry.(pgfoundry|postgresql).org with a PostgreSQL
  related projects by looking at the URL only.  

  As for the "length" of the URL, I think any developer or user 
  of PostgreSQL is knowledgeable enough to take advantage of browser
  bookmarks. :) 

  I'm definitely against using 'pgfoundry.org' as I believe sub-projects
  should all fall under the currently used postgresql.org domain. 

  Another thing to think about is search engine placement.  Most search
  engines give higher listings to keywords that are in the domain name.
  While people will search for 'postgres' and/or 'postgresql' no one
  is going to come up with 'pgfoundry' on their own. 

 ---------------------------------
   Frank Wiles <[email protected]>
   http://frank.wiles.org
 ---------------------------------

view thread (38+ 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]
  Subject: Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
  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