Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A73D2E002D for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:24:18 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16926-06 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:24:15 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from svr2.hagander.net (svr2.hagander.net [88.198.128.226]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384702E002C for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:24:15 -0300 (ADT) Received: from dynamic.hagander.net ([127.0.0.1]) (encrypted and authenticated) by svr2.hagander.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A080DCC998; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:24:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <47E52544.3080502@hagander.net> Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:27:00 +0100 From: Magnus Hagander User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Treat CC: pgsql-www@postgresql.org, Dave Page , Bruce Momjian Subject: Re: Time to get infrastructure team-based References: <937d27e10803201507ue1fdfe1p7a9310ba5518f357@mail.gmail.com> <200803202222.m2KMMs627372@momjian.us> <937d27e10803201526n5c8c0901icbae3729765e36e@mail.gmail.com> <200803202315.58225.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> In-Reply-To: <200803202315.58225.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200803/469 X-Sequence-Number: 14588 Robert Treat wrote: > On Thursday 20 March 2008 18:26, Dave Page wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> Dave Page wrote: >>> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Bruce Momjian > wrote: >>> > > I saw your request for documentation on the infrastructure but I >>> > > don't remember anything else. I don't se this as a core discussion >>> > > because the team is going to be more than core folks. >>> > >>> > I've suggested a number of times that we need to decouple all >>> > postgresql.org mail infrastructure from hub.org so it can be >>> > independently managed. Numerous people have been asked the same thing >>> > here for much longer, but have given up because the answer has always >>> > been no. Thats why I've been raising it in core. >>> >>> OK, so maybe there is the crux. Who says "no" unchallenged? I don't >>> think I can, and I don't think anyone else in this community can either. >> I think you can guess who says no (if not, I'll tell you out of band). >> I seem to be the only person doing any challenging and without some >> nods of agreement at least I cannot do much more. We do at least have >> some more documentation as of yesterday though... but the current >> problems are with a whole server which that doesn't help with. >> > > If we're serious about doing this decoupling, I'll mention again that OmniTI > would be interested in helping out... fwiw we helped out the PHP project > setup thier current infrastructure.... and have a fair amount of knowledge in > the email department. +42 on the decoupling (something I've been arguing for for years, so that can't come as a surprise). It will help us two-fold: First, it will make the system simpler, and thus easier to track errors in. Second, it will open it up for more people to be able to help out with fixing issues in it. And when we do that, not using the expertise offered by OmniTI would be a big mistake. As long as they way it'd be done is for them to help us out with how to configure it within the parameters that our infrastructure works on now, and not just deliver a "dropin off-the-shelf solution" that we should be using. But with my understanding of how OmniTI works, I don't see that as being a problem. //Magnus