Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> That's kind of what I'm doing now. But I'm wondering if I should
>>> bother with pgFoundry at all. It seems pretty dead (see Josh Berkus's
>>> reply).
>>>
>
> Actually, pgFoundry remains extremely popular. Currently, we're getting an
> average of 2-3 new projects a week.
>
> The issue with pgFoundry is that it's based on a hacked version of the
> GForge code, which had legacy problems to begin with and is now no longer
> upgradable. And while lots of people want to complain about it, nobody
> wants to put in the 15-25 hours of work required to fix it up so that it
> supports SVN and code snippets (including me).
>
I'd be willing to investigate and have a go at this. Until now I
haven't heard that we were in such a situation with pgFoundry. Does it
even have a roadmap for future work? It is a problem that GForge
development in general appears to have slowed/stalled for a couple of
years. There have been some recent developments but I'm not convinced
it will get back to the same development rate as Tim Prudue it working
on the AS version now.
I personally had such high hopes for pgfoundry as the GBorg site was not
that great. But it seems that we haven't been able to make the
pgfoundry dream a reality.
> However, I agree with Robert that maintaining a collab site is, today, a
> bad use of our limited administration resources, which could be better
> turned to developing directory and build services (for "kitchen sink"
> packages). Realistically, though, shutting down pgFoundry might take as
> much work as fixing it.
>
Currently it's managed by core developers. I'm not convinced it's the
best use of their time either. But others in the community may be at
their best supporting something like pgFoundry. But whether it's safe
to hand out that level of clearance to other community members is the
decision that has to be made.
So if somebody is interesting in contacting me about moving pgfoundry
forward, please do so.
Regards
Russell Smith
