On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Daniele Varrazzo's message of dom sep 23 22:02:51 -0300 2012:
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > As proposed by Masahiko, a single organization grouping all the tools (one
>> > repository per tool) would be enough. Please note that github can also host
>> > documentation. Bug tracker would be tool-dedicated in this case.
>>
>> From this PoV, pgFoundry allows your tool to be under
>> http://yourtool.projects.postgresql.org instead of under a more
>> generic namespace: I find it a nice and cozy place in the url space
>> where to put your project. If pgFoundry will be dismissed I hope at
>> least a hosting service for static pages will remain.
>
> I don't think that has been offered.
But I don't think it's necessarily the case that pgFoundry is getting
"dismissed", either.
I got a note from Marc Fournier not too long ago (sent to some
probably-not-small set of people with pgFoundry accounts) indicating
that they were planning to upgrade gForge as far as they could, and
then switch to FusionForge <http://fusionforge.org/>, which is
evidently the successor. It shouldn't be assumed that the upgrade
process will be easy or quick.
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
