Subject: Re: Updating Sourceforge
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1280)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: "Jonathan S. Katz" <jonathan.katz@excoventures.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABUevEzJJymOU2WvFKRpK21R+qbDiun5+y47=L11UCjSHcOLdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:36:35 -0400
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>,
	Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A716F951-F96D-4BBD-8E9B-FF32F378F7A8@excoventures.com>
References: <20130411184008.GE4560@momjian.us>
	<CABUevEztmKt-PO66h-x4s+bdav4POJfxDPj6i7pTQ1OpmgUGig@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+OCxox=xRPcmOXfTOLAge1WN=ysYcYaGj9woXETL1zutac5xQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+U5nM+H0qLrjgRbvXQJ3MA1ErodHQOgoMsbyqPnb6e9UXByBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABUevEzJJymOU2WvFKRpK21R+qbDiun5+y47=L11UCjSHcOLdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org

On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrot=
e:
>> On 11 April 2013 19:50, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrot=
e:
>>>>> We again don't have anyone updating Sourceforge:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>        http://sourceforge.net/projects/pgsql/
>>>>>=20
>>>>> The posted version is 9.0.  I again suggest we remove it.
>>>>=20
>>>> And I again second this suggestion.
>>>=20
>>> Thirded.
>>=20
>>=20
>> -1
>>=20
>> This is a form of advocacy for the project, just like listing anywhere e=
lse.
>=20
> Is it really? Does anybody care about sourceforge these days?
>=20
> And is it good advocacy if people go there and download old versions?
>=20
>> Putting correct and useful information out there is what we should be tr=
ying
>> to do more of, not less.
>>=20
>> I completely agree that you guys shouldn't do it, but that doesn't mean
>> nobody does it at all.
>=20
>=20
> We are clearly not capable of keeping the sourceforge records up to date.
>=20
> We've had multiple different people in charge of it, and it has
> *never* been updated on time more than once after a new person picks
> it up. In this case, it's clearly lacking by *years*.
>=20
> We do have the same issue at freshmeat, but at least there is no
> *code* uploaded there.
>=20
>=20
>> I'll arrange it, if you don't object.
>=20
> While I don't trust you any less than the previous people who have
> volunteered to maintain this and then failed one or two releases
> later, I personally think we've reached the point where we should just
> accept that we can't do it, and get rid of it. We can keep switching
> maintainers, but in the end, I don't think it's worth it.
>=20
> That's IMO, of course, others may vary.

While I do agree with Simon in that it is an avenue for increased visibilit=
y of the PG project, the track record of keeping the info up-to-date is poo=
r - even looking at the older versions of files listed, the releases were n=
ot kept up to date.

With that said, if Sourceforge has some sort of API that we could plug into=
 and just write a request to upload new releases for PG to, it may be worth=
while.  But if we cannot automate it, I don't think it's worthwhile.

Jonathan


--=20
Sent via pgsql-www mailing list (pgsql-www@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www