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 1142DD1CC76 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 17:11:36 +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 50102-08 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:11:26 -0400 (AST) Received: from ngate.rdw.ru (mail.rdw.ru [195.42.172.4]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2018BD1D38E for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:11:23 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 16066 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2004 17:11:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO rdw.ru) (192.168.0.57) by ngate.rdw.ru with SMTP; 8 Mar 2004 17:11:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 12830 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2004 17:11:18 -0000 Received: from ppp01.rdw.ru (HELO cs.msu.su) ([192.168.0.7]) (envelope-sender ) by rdw.ru (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 8 Mar 2004 17:11:17 -0000 Message-ID: <404CA93D.6030102@cs.msu.su> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 20:11:25 +0300 From: Alexey Borzov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: ru, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Page Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Update on 'portal' changes References: <03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B889F5D1@mail.vale-housing.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B889F5D1@mail.vale-housing.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200403/57 X-Sequence-Number: 3873 Hi! Dave Page wrote: >>Speaking of which, what is the real reason for keeping the >>current website and the "next-generation" one in one project? >> >>Maybe a better approach would be to register a separate >>project for the next-generation website (I think this was >>already proposed here)? > > Because the project is for all the websites, not just the one you are > working on. OK, let's paraphrase: what is the reason for having one project for all websites instead of one project per website? I got the impression that *different* developers work on different websites... > We *have* created a separate CVS module which should be more than enough > segregation. Can CVS write access be given for this module only?