Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UQNKt-0001dl-BK for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:39:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UQNKs-0001xX-Qv for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:39:06 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:7903:4::125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UQNKr-0001wJ-GH for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:39:05 +0000 Received: from mail-ve0-f171.google.com ([209.85.128.171]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UQNKk-0008H7-0l for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:39:04 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id b10so1758370vea.16 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:38:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:message-id:references:to:x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=aGeEYnYhPxv5k4TY1iAiJaVDhDxRH7mSmIv7CUZ3qHw=; b=ZY7nOUpahx3tsw6Omki8dWUzbJsF4rNjeFlzef5Pb+jMPNeRAAArgDpbOG/0cBVFCA dER0FgFomgnt2R/lhXDAin7qvUR4a0vOLHwKc1do1LPCS9sdQ76zDAoXJf670VCETWjF 3ZdJ6rpfUeTrGlmq+6lfk1/oT2w5EPf9jBkoSFUKjtcQJB5HTRTB8ri3OT8P+txTf34z 4aRjTdOOjAYZt49aXHHAkkcz0mKYcfNM7PrNf/LiC5IPbxkg/aVZfI8y/63VNiHGMAnP 5SlF759NNkzJLX6GVOIgwr/xnXiN6gX/Ij/upUST7SgXkqtG4S/9RKNFnLUS9v0ncZru AawQ== X-Received: by 10.58.75.46 with SMTP id z14mr6061242vev.52.1365709136970; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.15] (pool-100-2-123-209.nycmny.fios.verizon.net. [100.2.123.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j5sm5441615vdv.13.2013.04.11.12.38.55 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Updating Sourceforge Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1280) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_61594372-CEAD-4BC3-B596-FC14D979D447" From: "Jonathan S. Katz" In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:38:53 -0400 Cc: Simon Riggs , Dave Page , Bruce Momjian , PostgreSQL www Message-Id: References: <20130411184008.GE4560@momjian.us> To: Magnus Hagander X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1280) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlop2PT79ylkIkYNo1AoTvH6OY/60fLbiG0AT5CXUHSAnUswc2snuvKgobD32cVM2bK2KnH X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-www Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org --Apple-Mail=_61594372-CEAD-4BC3-B596-FC14D979D447 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >=20 >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Simon Riggs = wrote: >>> On 11 April 2013 19:50, Dave Page wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Magnus Hagander = >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Bruce Momjian = wrote: >>>>>> 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 else. >>=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 trying >>> 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. 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/ --Apple-Mail=_61594372-CEAD-4BC3-B596-FC14D979D447 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
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> = wrote:
On 11 April 2013 19:50, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> = wrote:

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> = wrote:
We = again don't have anyone updating = Sourceforge:

=       http://sourceforge.net/pro= jects/pgsql/

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

And I again second this = suggestion.

Thirded.


-1

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.

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


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.

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

= --Apple-Mail=_61594372-CEAD-4BC3-B596-FC14D979D447--