X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7596A5E46D5
	for <pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 14 Aug 2004 02:11:54 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 93882-06
	for <pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 14 Aug 2004 05:11:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from tetra.ehpg.net (tetra.ehpg.net [216.218.206.34])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7295E46CD
	for <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>; Sat, 14 Aug 2004 02:11:52 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from adsl-67-122-136-188.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ([172.16.1.35])
	[67.122.136.188]by tetra.ehpg.netwith asmtp(Exim 4.34 #1
	(Gentoo Linux 1.4))id 1BvqpZ-0000ZD-Hp;
	Fri, 13 Aug 2004 22:11:50 -0700
Message-ID: <411D9F01.10901@ehpg.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 22:11:29 -0700
From: "Gavin M. Roy" <gmr@ehpg.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: time to move to the new code
References: <200408140106.51527.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <200408140106.51527.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus-Scanned: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests=
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200408/133
X-Sequence-Number: 4908

I'm willing to jam a new design out if we can get a common consensus on 
design desires.  The basic thing I got from the last round is that 
people dont want anything different.  Maybe it makes sense to prepare a 
new site, design and all, and launch it with 8.0 when it comes out of beta?

Gavin

Robert Treat wrote:

>I think it is time to move to the new code for www. The biggest argument 
>against the idea was the desire some folks had to implement a new design 
>along with the new code.  Well, the design doesn't get done and the code gets 
>more out of synch as maintainance on the live site rolls on, so I think we 
>need to bite the bullet and move to the new code. Once it is in place we 
>should be able to make deisng changes much easier anyway, after all that is 
>part of the point of the new code.  Are there any open items that would 
>prevent us from making the switch?
>
>  
>