Tom Lane wrote:
>>Speaking as a pgFoundry admin, I would say if they aren't actively
>>maintained we don't want them either. pgFoundry is not a dumping ground
>>for modules that are dying.
>>
>>
>
>I didn't say they were dying --- the ones we thought were dead, we
>already dropped. I was responding to Joshua's concern that they might
>get enough update traffic to pose a noticeable load on the pgfoundry
>server. Most of them seem to have been touched only once or twice in
>the past year. That does not indicate that they don't have user
>communities, though.
>
>
>
>
OK. I agree that we do not need to wait, any more than we are waiting
now on other newly registered projects. What we do need is an owner in
each case.
cheers
andrew
