Subject: Updating Sourceforge

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:40:08 -0400

We again don't have anyone updating Sourceforge:

	http://sourceforge.net/projects/pgsql/

The posted version is 9.0.  I again suggest we remove it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email-masked]>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

-- 
Sent via pgsql-www mailing list ([email-masked])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:47:09 +0200

> The posted version is 9.0.  I again suggest we remove it.

And I again second this suggestion.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:50:04 +0100

> And I again second this suggestion.

Thirded.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

---

From: Simon Riggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:04:36 +0100

> > And I again second this suggestion.

-1

This is a form of advocacy for the project, just like listing anywhere else.

Putting correct and useful information out there is what we should be
trying to do more of, not less.

I completely agree that you guys shouldn't do it, but that doesn't mean
nobody does it at all.

I'll arrange it, if you don't object.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:09:43 +0200

> This is a form of advocacy for the project, just like listing anywhere else.

Is it really? Does anybody care about sourceforge these days?

And is it good advocacy if people go there and download old versions?

> Putting correct and useful information out there is what we should be trying
> to do more of, not less.
>

We are clearly not capable of keeping the sourceforge records up to date.

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*.

We do have the same issue at freshmeat, but at least there is no
*code* uploaded there.

> I'll arrange it, if you don't object.

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.

That's IMO, of course, others may vary.

---

From: Simon Riggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:33:02 +0100

> Is it really? Does anybody care about sourceforge these days?

I don't. But where would you list, if not there? Do we just give up trying
to maintain any external listings? (Or perhaps we never were bothered)

I do take your point, that being out of date is worse than nothing at all.

But I think there is a place better than that, if we organise that.

---

From: "Jonathan S. Katz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:36:35 -0400

> That's IMO, of course, others may vary.

While I do agree with Simon in that it is an avenue for increased visibility of the PG project, the track record of keeping the info up-to-date is poor - even looking at the older versions of files listed, the releases were not 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 worthwhile.  But if we cannot automate it, I don't think it's worthwhile.

Jonathan

---

From: "Jonathan S. Katz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:38:53 -0400

> 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 worthwhile.  But if we cannot automate it, I don't t…

We would be able to script it - SourceForge provides an SSH interface for updating files: http://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/SSH/ and http://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/Files/

---

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:28:59 -0000

Magnus Hagander wrote:
...
> it up. In this case, it's clearly lacking by *years*.

I don't buy this at all. We regularly clear much steeper technical and 
social hurdles than this. Why not post a help wanted ad on -general 
about this? The echo chamber of -www is probably not the best place 
to recruit for things outside our immediate infrastructure.

- -- 
Greg Sabino Mullane [email-masked]
End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201304111927
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:39:57 -0400

> to recruit for things outside our immediate infrastructure.

How many times to we have to continue to fail until we give up and say
it isn't important enough to maintain?

---

From: Simon Riggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 01:11:49 +0100

> it isn't important enough to maintain?

I think we're conflating two things here. The fact that we haven't
maintained it is no evidence that it isn't important and so no reason to
stop trying.

If we have volunteers, we should continue to maintain it. Clearly whoever
didn't do it before is not the right person(s) to continue, but again, no
evidence that new people wouldn't change that situation. If there is nobody
to maintain it, then clearly we should stop.

If there is evidence or some feeling that it isn't worthwhile maintaining
it, that is a different issue and one worth discussing.

Where do we list our existence? Which places should we do so, or continue
to do so? My feeling is that external listings are quite important overall,
though I accept that Sourceforge does have to prove itself as a place
worthy of attention against other possibilities.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:56:33 -0400

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 01:11:49AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I think we're conflating two things here. The fact that we haven't maintained
> it is no evidence that it isn't important and so no reason to stop trying.
> 
> evidence that new people wouldn't change that situation. If there is nobody to
> maintain it, then clearly we should stop.
> 
> If there is evidence or some feeling that it isn't worthwhile maintaining it,
> that is a different issue and one worth discussing.
> 
> Where do we list our existence? Which places should we do so, or continue to do
> so? My feeling is that external listings are quite important overall, though I
> accept that Sourceforge does have to prove itself as a place worthy of
> attention against other possibilities.

The problem is this comes up every few years, someone says it is
important and should be done, then repeat.  I have no faith this will
change.

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:00:18 -0400

> important and should be done, then repeat.  I have no faith this will

There was some mention upthread of the possibility of automating the
updates.  If we could do that, it'd be worth doing.  I agree that
expecting manual updates to get done meets the classic definition of
insanity.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:11:45 -0400

> expecting manual updates to get done meets the classic definition of

OK, seems it is not as bad as I thought.  The project 'pgsql' is indeed
in as pathetic shape as we said:

	https://sourceforge.net/projects/pgsql/

What _is_ interesting is that the Sourceforce editors created their own
PostgreSQL project page:

	https://sourceforge.net/projects/postgresql.mirror/

that is being updated --- I see 9.2.4 updated on 2013-04-04, which was
our release date, and I even see download stats from that date forward.

What I did just now was to mark 'pgsql' as moved to 'postgresql.mirror';
unfortunately the text is not clickable.  FYI, I only knew about 'pgsql'
because I received email from them because I am an admin.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:13:30 -0400

> because I received email from them because I am an admin.

I have now made the text clickable to redirect to the sf-editor-updated
version.  :-)

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:52:08 +0200

> I have now made the text clickable to redirect to the sf-editor-updated

If there is another one. That's automatically updated. Why not just
*drop* this one?

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:22:49 -0400

> If there is another one. That's automatically updated. Why not just

I can mark it as an "Abandoned" project --- done.  Is that better?

	https://sourceforge.net/p/pgsql/admin/overview

That is my only other option (active, moved, abandoned).  I don't think
so, but take a look.

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:27:18 +0200

> That is my only other option (active, moved, abandoned).  I don't think

No, that seems really bad. It now says "As of 2013-04-12, this project
is no longer under active development."

I also notice we've had 49 downloads this week.  Which is pretty bad
since it's all of outdated versions.

Perhaps you should change it back to the link, but also try to find
out if there is a way to *delete* the current downloads that are
horribly out of date. Since people are clearly using them.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:02:27 -0400

> is no longer under active development."

I didn't think you were going to like that, but you had to see it.  ;-)

> horribly out of date. Since people are clearly using them.

OK, changed to "Moved", and I have removed all the download files
associated with our project.