Greg Smith wrote:
> Guillaume Smet wrote:
[...]
>> I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one in this case and I'm also pretty
>> sure there's a lot of projects that won't be moved and will be lost
>> (either immediately or after a few years).
>>
>
> The flip side to this is that the many obsolete projects on there that
> waste people's time when they dowload them and discover they don't work
> anymore will finally go away. Just in the top 10 most downloaded
> projects, about 1/3 of them haven't been updated in years and are
> basically dead already. I would roughly guess that there's from 50-100
> projects like yours that really need to be migrated somewhere if
> pgFoundry is deprecated. I feel the community would be better off if
> most of the rest disappeared, just to cut down on newbie confusion.
> Having hundreds of half-baked projects in there isn't helping anyone.
depends - even a half baked project can be of use to somebody who is
interested in using it as a base for a similiar project (or even taking
it over). I don't think that code that has not been updated in ages is
actually "useless" - sure itmight not work on a more recent version of
PostgreSQL or such but it is still something that might be of use.
What actually might be more helpful is categorizing the projects in a
more straight forward way(as in combine download stats and activity for
a start) to give the what you call a "newbie" a better idea of what
project is in what state. There is a way to do that easily withing
gforge but maybe just improving the visibility of that would help with
that(like the OLEdb project).
On the other hand we got more than 50 project applications this year(not
all of the accepted) so there seems to be a need and an interest from
the community for a postgresql centric project hosting infrastructure.
Stefan
