Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. - Mailing list pgsql-www

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
Date
Msg-id 11654.1079116607@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: On pgweb project (Re: Update on 'portal' changes)  ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>)
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.  (Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>)
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.  (Frank Wiles <frank@wiles.org>)
List pgsql-www
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is
> available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain
> "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ...

I agree we don't want <project>.postgresql.org, as that is likely to
risk name conflicts.  However, that objection doesn't apply to
<project>.projects.postgresql.org, or variants of that.  So far the only
objection I've heard to that sort of setup is "the domain name is too
long", and as others have pointed out, it's a weak objection.

Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
dual-naming the project sites?  That is, have both
    <project>.pgfoundry.org
    <project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org
point to the same place?

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-www by date:

Previous
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
Next
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.