Kris,
I don't have any specific objection to moving to github. What is
disorganized about git.postgresql.org ?
+1 to moving to github
+1 to the issue tracking
+1 to the weekend of 2/4
Dave Cramer
dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
http://www.credativ.ca
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> wrote:
>
> So we've discussed a move to git for some time and are just about ready to
> do that based on Maciek's work. So in conjunction with that, I think we
> should move off of pgfoundry at the same time. pgfoundry is bound to be
> shutdown soon and we shouldn't stick with it to the end like we did with
> gborg. So instead of moving to the disorganized git.postgresql.org which
> only offers git hosting, I'd suggest we move to github which will give us
> more exposure and additional hosting features like a wiki and issue
> tracking.
>
> Since we don't have any major work in progress I see no need to hold up
> this move. Does anyone have an objection to moving things over the
> weekend of 2/4?
>
> The only thing that pgfoundry still supports is the jdbc-commits mailing
> list. So we could send that mail to the general pgjdbc list or we could
> not bother sending it anywhere and let people pick it up via the
> methods provided by github or perhaps we could petition the postgresql.org
> infrastructure for another list.
>
> Kris Jurka
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-jdbc
