On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy@postgresql.org]
> > Sent: 26 November 2003 14:02
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
> > Subject: RE: [pgsql-www] gforge
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> >
> > > What's wrong with Gborg, or have I missed the point?
> >
> > I think the big thing is stall'd development and lack of
> > features ... at least that is the feel I've ever gotten from
> > ppl when I try to get them turned onto it ;(
>
> On the plus side we have various developments in there that *we* want
> that we might not get in another package.
Like ... ? Note, I don't use gborg, only look at it as a user
periodically, so I'm asking based on what I've heard, not what I've
experienced ...
> A few thoughts:
>
> - What are you going to do about existing projects? Force them to move
> or end up with 2 projeect sites. Bear in mind that some of the more
> important ones (libpqxx, npgsql etc.) may not want to move.
cross-linkage between the two shouldn't be a problem ... add a project to
gforge for libpqxx and have it pointing to gborg ...
> - If ppl move site, then there will be potentially massive migration of
> user lists to handle.
Actually, that isn't a big issue ... both use CVS and both use mailman, so
moving files from gborg to gforge is simple ...
Right now, I'm just playing with gforge based on discussions on Advocacy
... since I don't use either, its no skin off my back which we use. But,
every time that someone suggests to a project to put it up on gborg, there
is generally a long thread of "but it doesn't do this, its to rigid in
that" that goes on before the whole thread is drop'd ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
