Re: [pgsql-www] Fix for PG History web page - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

On 01/01/2016 06:47 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
> <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc <mailto:stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>> wrote:
>
>     moving to -advocacy because I think it better belongs there from a
>     discussion pov
>
>     On 12/23/2015 05:50 AM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us <mailto:bruce@momjian.us>
>      > <mailto:bruce@momjian.us <mailto:bruce@momjian.us>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     Our PG history web pages says talks about Postgres 8.0, which
>     seems kind
>      >     of old at this point:
>      >
>      > http://www.postgresql.org/about/history/
>      >
>      >             Today, PostgreSQL's user base is larger than ever and
>     includes a
>      >             sizeable group of large corporations who use it in
>     demanding
>      >             environments. Some of these companies such as Afilias and
>      >     Fujitsu have
>      >             made significant contributions to PostgreSQL's
>     development.
>      >     And, true to
>      >             its roots, it continues to improve in both
>     sophistication and
>      >             performance, now more than ever. Version 8.0 is
>     PostgreSQL's
>      >     long
>      >                                                      ---
>      >             awaited debut into the enterprise database market,
>     bringing
>      >     features
>      >             such as tablespaces, Java stored procedures, point in
>     time
>      >     recovery, and
>      >             nested transactions (savepoints). With it came a long
>      >     awaited feature
>      >             --- a native Windows port.
>      >
>      >     Can someone update this?  Can I submit a patch?
>      >
>      >
>      > I always think, that our history page is very outdated and
>     requires more
>      > addition than you proposed. I have nothing against mentioning Afilias
>      > and Fujtsu, but then why we didn't acknowledged other companies ?
>     Also,
>      > I think, better to discuss such things in -advocacy mailing list.
>      >
>      > btw, I think we missed great Elein posts
>      >
>     http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20041203184254.F6767@cookie.varlena.com
>
>     In light of the upcoming 9.5 release it would be awfully nice if
>     somebody could work on updating /about:
>
>       * The "History" page is very outdated and clearly needs some love
>     * the "Awards" page is something we should imho remove completely
>     (clearly awards are something people care less and less about given our
>     maturity and seeing the most "recent" award on our website being from
>     2008 is imho actually very bad for our advocacy
>     * The case studies are very outdated and in a fair amount of cases
>     confusing - I think we should also remove them given nobody seem to have
>     the time and enthusiasm to keep them at least somewhat current, same for
>     the "featured users" list (most recent entry there seems to be from
>     ~2006 and some places dont even exist any more)
>
>
> These things are all on the TODO list of the folks who offered to work
> on the website redesign. As I'm sure Bruce is very well aware, since was
> present in the meeting that they did. However, per the result of that
> discussion, *their* focus is to work on the design first and the content
> later.
>
> However, that of course doesn't prevent *others* from working on the
> actual content. Patches are always welcome, and as those are all static
> pages they shouldn't break any of the redesign work.

Where is the entry point for doing patches?

Or is there some link that describes at least in outline form a
procedure for working on the Web site content?

>
>
>
>     So in summary my proposal is:
>
>     1. dropping the following subpages unless somebody has time to update
>     them because I think in the current state they are really harmful:
>        * "featured users"
>        * "case studies"
>        * "awards"
>     2. overhauling "History" and update it with what happened in the last 10
>     years
>     3. Somebody (preferably the persons who maintain the entries) should
>     audit "Quotes" whether they are still relevant and accurate
>     4. with less priority (but still) "Advantages" should be overhauled and
>     updated
>
>
>
>     comments? volunteers?
>
>
> Definitely agree. Now if you can only find some volunteers to actually
> *do* it...
>
>
> --
>   Magnus Hagander
>   Me: http://www.hagander.net/
>   Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com