Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:58:53 -0500 (EST)
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > Somebody needs to update the download pages at sourceforge.net.
> > >
> > > Or... I'll just throw this one out again. Why don't we remove
> > > those ;-) Previously there was actually a reason for it, since they
> > > provided http downloads and our own mirror network only provided
> > > ftp. But our network now supports both http and ftp downloads, so I
> > > don't really see the point of keeping them. And since we have a
> > > tradition of updating them weeks or months after the actual
> > > releases, let's just drop them?
> > >
> > > (For the record, they've had about 100 downloads so far this year,
> > > compared to about 2.5 million from the main site.)
> >
> > With 100 downloads this year it is hard to argue that it is worth the
> > effort keeping the sourceforge files. Just point them at
> > www.postgresql.org and be done with it.
>
> Consider that it was a 100 downloads, unmaintained. It is a false test
> of legitimacy.
Well, odds are the people who did those 100 downloads didn't know they
were getting old code so my bet is the 100 might have been 1000 maybe 5000
but not a huge number.
> Maintain it, actively for one year, then post the statistics. That is
> going to be the only way to assess even remotely accurately if it is
> worth it.
>
> Now.. if we don't have the resources, then sure let's dump it.
I am suggesting our resources are better spent elsewhere. Linking to
our www download page gets us 95% of the benefit for little cost.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
