Thread: Re: [pgsql-www] Fix for PG History web page

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>> 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 I always think, that our history page is very outdated and requires more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 * The "History" page is very outdated and clearly needs some love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* The case studies are very outdated and in a fair amount of cases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)

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?

Stefan

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

On 01/01/2016 06:41 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> 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?

http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=pgweb.git;a=summary

and more specificially:

http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=pgweb.git;a=tree;f=docs;hb=HEAD



Stefan

On 01/01/2016 09:45 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> On 01/01/2016 06:41 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>> 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?
>
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=pgweb.git;a=summary
>
> and more specificially:
>
> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=pgweb.git;a=tree;f=docs;hb=HEAD

Thanks.

>
>
>
> Stefan
>


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com