X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BFE79DCB7B; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:27:44 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15252-08; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:26:52 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mx-2.sollentuna.net (mx-2.sollentuna.net [195.84.163.199]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE3E9DD694; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 14:26:52 -0400 (AST) Received: from ALGOL.sollentuna.se (janus.sollentuna.se [62.65.68.67]) by mx-2.sollentuna.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A5B18F293; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:26:50 +0100 (CET) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:26:54 +0100 Message-ID: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE92E8D2@algol.sollentuna.se> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] Upcoming PG re-releases Thread-Index: AcX2mOO4M/iZvx8bQGuAnhaRzWlRegAANsiwAAK/bAA= From: "Magnus Hagander" To: "Dave Page" , "Marc G. Fournier" , "Peter Eisentraut" Cc: , "Euler Taveira de Oliveira" , "Richard Huxton" , "Robert Treat" , , "Tom Lane" , "Andrew Dunstan" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/13 X-Sequence-Number: 8954 > > That would be fairly trivial ... let me add it to the 'todo=20 > list' ...=20 > > I take it that it would be safe to relegate the=20 > /pub/source/OLD stuff=20 > > there too? >=20 > Not so trivial to put behind a web interface or the download=20 > tracker though. Is it really necessary to have a separate=20 > archive downloads site? It's not like the old ones get in the=20 > way, or cost anything other than disk space on the mirrors to=20 > store (and I've only ever heard mirror admins say how small=20 > our site is compared to many others!). >=20 > Plus of course, weren't we trying to reduce the number of VMs/sites? Agreed. If we're going to keep it, just sticking it in a /old/ directory is definitly a lot better. //Magnus