Re: [pgsql-www] Gborg: announcement by 404

From: Bruce Momjian
Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Gborg: announcement by 404
Date: ,
Msg-id: 200711141847.lAEIl9f26645@momjian.us
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: [pgsql-www] Gborg: announcement by 404  (Andrew Sullivan)
List: pgsql-advocacy

Tree view

Gborg: announcement by 404  ("Greg Sabino Mullane", )
 Re: Gborg: announcement by 404  (Shane Ambler, )
  Re: Gborg: announcement by 404  (Andrew Sullivan, )
   Re: [pgsql-www] Gborg: announcement by 404  ("Marc G. Fournier", )
    Re: [pgsql-www] Gborg: announcement by 404  (Robert Treat, )
   Re: Gborg: announcement by 404  (Shane Ambler, )
    Re: Gborg: announcement by 404  (Andrew Sullivan, )
 Re: Gborg: announcement by 404  (Gregory Stark, )
  Re: Gborg: announcement by 404  (Michael Paesold, )
   Re: Gborg: announcement by 404  (Magnus Hagander, )
 Re: [pgsql-www] Gborg: announcement by 404  ("Marc G. Fournier", )
  Redirects for gborg are in place  ("Greg Sabino Mullane", )
   Re: Redirects for gborg are in place  (Dave Page, )
   Re: Redirects for gborg are in place  (Michael Paesold, )
    Re: Redirects for gborg are in place  (Andrew Sullivan, )
   Re: Redirects for gborg are in place  (Robert Treat, )
 Re: Gborg: announcement by 404  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
  Re: Gborg: announcement by 404  (Robert Treat, )
   Re: [pgsql-www] Gborg: announcement by 404  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
    Please take Gborg thread off of -advocacy  (Josh Berkus, )
 Re: [pgsql-www] Gborg: announcement by 404  (Andrew Sullivan, )
  Re: [pgsql-www] Gborg: announcement by 404  (Bruce Momjian, )

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 01:34:05PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > For all the discussions on why doing this so quickly was such a bad idea, do
> > you realize that *so far*, there have been a whole three *active* projects that
> > hadn't been moved over?  pgweb, pljava and pgjdbc ...
>
> That is completely irrelevant.  My point is a simple one: we're a mature
> project, and we should act like grown ups with our infrastructure.  That
> means rather more _specific_ notice to users about when things will go away.
> The way it happened, it looked like someone woke up one morning and said, "I
> think I'll take down gborg today."  If we want people to trust our software
> with their critical data, we have to act as though predictability is a good
> thing.
>
> Nobody is suggesting that it was ok to have gborg linger the way it did.
> All I'm saying is that the next time we shut something down, we need to tell
> _everybody_ well in advance exactly _when_ we think things will go away
> (emergencies are, of course, excepted).  This doesn't mean four-hour
> "maintenance windows" at midnight or any of that.  But it does mean that,
> some weeks in advance of something going away, there should be some evidence
> that the changes are planned.

Agreed.  I assume it was just done this way due to frustration, which
isn't a great way to deal with things, but I think we all understand it.

(I have to say I was kind of shocked at the rapidity of it, but at this
stage, I wasn't going to slow down something I have been waiting for for
years.  ;-) )

--
  Bruce Momjian  <>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


pgsql-advocacy by date:

From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Gborg: announcement by 404
From: Robert Treat
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Gborg: announcement by 404