The reason I favour a GBorg is that VA Linux (who own sourceforge) have yet
to turn in a profit and so maylook to trim some of it's assets in order to
improve profitability at some point in the future.
I think it would be a bad move to shift everything to sourceforge, only to
find that a year or more down the line the site dissappears/degrades to a
level where it causes problems for the project, and loose the time we could
have spent building up the reputation of GBorg.
Al.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Conway" <neilc@samurai.com>
To: "Greg Copeland" <greg@CopelandConsulting.Net>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>; "Marc G. Fournier"
<scrappy@hub.org>; "Tatsuo Ishii" <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>; <raanders@acm.org>;
"PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 2:55 AM
Subject: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Update on replication
> On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 21:33, Greg Copeland wrote:
> > I do agree, GBorg needs MUCH higher visibility!
>
> I'm just curious: why do we need GBorg at all? Does it offer anything
> that SourceForge, or a similar service does not offer?
>
> Especially given that (a) most other OSS projects don't have a site for
> "related projects" (unless you count something like CPAN, which is
> totally different) (b) GBorg is completely unknown to anyone outside the
> PostgreSQL community and even to many people within it...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Neil
> --
> Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
