Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F11841288B2A for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 05:34:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail-tul01m020-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RsWa7-0000l7-1s for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:34:23 +0000 Received: by obcva7 with SMTP id va7so1044045obc.19 for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:34:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.47.10 with SMTP id z10mr38670958obm.19.1328088850409; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:34:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.6.227 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 01:34:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <96e5156e36277877d18484a5148ad516@biglumber.com> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:34:10 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Planet posting policy From: Dave Page To: Magnus Hagander Cc: Greg Sabino Mullane , pgsql-www@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Archive-Number: 201202/1 X-Sequence-Number: 20484 On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I think that blog post itself is a very good example of content we > *don't* necessarily want on planet. As written. I don't think it's a million miles off though. > It's too bad you didn't write a version that had the technical detali > and was less marketing/pressrelease:y to compare with :-) Because > AIUI, you don't actually suggest changing the policies as far as to > allow that post as it is - it would've allowed the modified version > only? Correct - though I would have described the basic features of course, as would be necessary to give the appropriate context to the technical detail. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company