Thread: Moving psqlodbc from pgfoundry to github

I'd like us to move away from pgfoundry. It's not very actively
maintained, and we don't use any other features than hosting the website.

I propose that we move to github. I'm not a huge fan of github myself,
but it works (they do a great job today, but I'm inherently afraid of
lock-in). I'd like to make the move in a way that can easily and
transparently switch to another provider later.

Here's my plan:

1. Set up a github organization called "psqlodbc".

2. Set up a github "organization page", with the website contebnts. Add
a CNAME to "odbc.postgresql.org". So the official URL of the project
would be "http://odbc.postgresql.org/", and it would be invisible to a
casual user that it's hosted at github.

3. Set up a redirect from the old page at
psqlodbc.projects.pgfoundry.org to odbc.postgresql.org.

Any objections?

- Heikki

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> 1. Set up a github organization called "psqlodbc".
If possible, I'd vote for pgodbc as organization/repo name, one reason
being that it is more consistent with pgjdbc.

> 2. Set up a github "organization page", with the website contebnts. Add a
> CNAME to "odbc.postgresql.org". So the official URL of the project would be
> "http://odbc.postgresql.org/", and it would be invisible to a casual user
> that it's hosted at github.
I imagine that this would be added as a separate repository whose name
is psqlodbc.github.io with the URL you want to redirect to in the
CNAME. Have you thought about a branch gh-pages instead?

> 3. Set up a redirect from the old page at psqlodbc.projects.pgfoundry.org to
> odbc.postgresql.org.
> Any objections?
Looks good.
--
Michael

On 06/04/2014 10:16 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
>> 1. Set up a github organization called "psqlodbc".
> If possible, I'd vote for pgodbc as organization/repo name, one reason
> being that it is more consistent with pgjdbc.

Hmm. psqlodbc has always been the name of the project, for better or
worse. I agree it's not a very good name, but that's the name we use in
the binaries, old website, git repository etc. That's just my 2c,
though; what do others think?

>> 2. Set up a github "organization page", with the website contebnts. Add a
>> CNAME to "odbc.postgresql.org". So the official URL of the project would be
>> "http://odbc.postgresql.org/", and it would be invisible to a casual user
>> that it's hosted at github.
> I imagine that this would be added as a separate repository whose name
> is psqlodbc.github.io with the URL you want to redirect to in the
> CNAME.

Right.

I'm planning to set up the github repository as a mirror of the
psqlodbc-www repository at git.postgresql.org. So
git://git.postgresql.org/git/psqlodbc-www.git would still be the
authoritative repository.

> Have you thought about a branch gh-pages instead?

You mean create the website as a "project page" instead of an
"user/organization page"? I don't think that would allow main URL to be
"odbc.postgresql.org", it would be "odbc.postgresql.org/psqlodbc".

- Heikki

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
> On 06/04/2014 10:16 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. Set up a github organization called "psqlodbc".
>>
>> If possible, I'd vote for pgodbc as organization/repo name, one reason
>> being that it is more consistent with pgjdbc.
>
>
> Hmm. psqlodbc has always been the name of the project, for better or worse.
> I agree it's not a very good name, but that's the name we use in the
> binaries, old website, git repository etc. That's just my 2c, though; what
> do others think?

Many years ago, the name was different in a bunch of different places.
We worked hard to standardise on psqlodbc, and I'd hate to see us go
back to the old ways.

>>> 2. Set up a github "organization page", with the website contebnts. Add a
>>> CNAME to "odbc.postgresql.org". So the official URL of the project would
>>> be
>>> "http://odbc.postgresql.org/", and it would be invisible to a casual user
>>> that it's hosted at github.
>>
>> I imagine that this would be added as a separate repository whose name
>> is psqlodbc.github.io with the URL you want to redirect to in the
>> CNAME.
>
>
> Right.
>
> I'm planning to set up the github repository as a mirror of the psqlodbc-www
> repository at git.postgresql.org. So
> git://git.postgresql.org/git/psqlodbc-www.git would still be the
> authoritative repository.

As far as GitHub is concerned, we have a "PostgreSQL" organisation on
there which hosts some of our other mirrors. I would suggest we put
this under that too.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Heikki, all,

* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakangas@vmware.com) wrote:
> I'd like us to move away from pgfoundry. It's not very actively
> maintained, and we don't use any other features than hosting the
> website.

+100

> I propose that we move to github. I'm not a huge fan of github
> myself, but it works (they do a great job today, but I'm inherently
> afraid of lock-in). I'd like to make the move in a way that can
> easily and transparently switch to another provider later.

There's been a suggestion that we host this on pginfra.  Perhaps we
could come up with a simple way to support multiple projects using one
system similar to what github provides.  Another option might be to
integrate these static files into the main postgresql.org site, but it's
unclear if that team would have the resources to support that and there
has been talk about having the site reworked and we may not want to add
to the work involved in doing that.

    Thanks,

        Stephen

Stephen Frost wrote:
> Heikki, all,
>
> * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakangas@vmware.com) wrote:

> > I propose that we move to github. I'm not a huge fan of github
> > myself, but it works (they do a great job today, but I'm inherently
> > afraid of lock-in). I'd like to make the move in a way that can
> > easily and transparently switch to another provider later.
>
> There's been a suggestion that we host this on pginfra.  Perhaps we
> could come up with a simple way to support multiple projects using one
> system similar to what github provides.  Another option might be to
> integrate these static files into the main postgresql.org site, but it's
> unclear if that team would have the resources to support that and there
> has been talk about having the site reworked and we may not want to add
> to the work involved in doing that.

So there are two options if we want to go this way.

1. psqlodbc.postgresql.org which would be its own VM running lighttpd
and serving the static files you have in the psqlodbc-www.git repo.
Seems simple enough.  There's not really all that much maintenance work
required -- it's just one more VM to update once in a while, which is
not a biggie really.

2. www.postgresql.org/psqlodbc which would go through Varnish and
whatnot.  While this means we don't need a separate VM, but on the other
hand I think it will be harder to integrate getting the files from the
git repo and configured correctly in the vhost, etc.

--
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Alvaro,

* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> 1. psqlodbc.postgresql.org which would be its own VM running lighttpd
> and serving the static files you have in the psqlodbc-www.git repo.

For my 2c- I do *not* want a dedicated VM for this.  If we go this way,
that VM would be for all small projects like this which have static
webpages, ala the developer webpages and git.postgresql.org.  That VM
wouldn't be the same one that the main site is on, but it also wouldn't
be dedicated to serving the 20-or-so static files that make up the ODBC
website.

> 2. www.postgresql.org/psqlodbc which would go through Varnish and
> whatnot.  While this means we don't need a separate VM, but on the other
> hand I think it will be harder to integrate getting the files from the
> git repo and configured correctly in the vhost, etc.

Updates would also need to go through the -www team if it was integrated
as part of the main site.  There are pros and cons for each option.

    Thanks,

        Stephen

Stephen Frost wrote:
> Alvaro,
>
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> > 1. psqlodbc.postgresql.org which would be its own VM running lighttpd
> > and serving the static files you have in the psqlodbc-www.git repo.
>
> For my 2c- I do *not* want a dedicated VM for this.  If we go this way,
> that VM would be for all small projects like this which have static
> webpages, ala the developer webpages and git.postgresql.org.  That VM
> wouldn't be the same one that the main site is on, but it also wouldn't
> be dedicated to serving the 20-or-so static files that make up the ODBC
> website.

Not sure on doing anything about git.pg.org, but certainly it might be
an option to have a directory for a psqlodbc vhost in devos.

--
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> > > 1. psqlodbc.postgresql.org which would be its own VM running lighttpd
> > > and serving the static files you have in the psqlodbc-www.git repo.
> >
> > For my 2c- I do *not* want a dedicated VM for this.  If we go this way,
> > that VM would be for all small projects like this which have static
> > webpages, ala the developer webpages and git.postgresql.org.  That VM
> > wouldn't be the same one that the main site is on, but it also wouldn't
> > be dedicated to serving the 20-or-so static files that make up the ODBC
> > website.
>
> Not sure on doing anything about git.pg.org, but certainly it might be
> an option to have a directory for a psqlodbc vhost in devos.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  A new VM for this is fine- just as long as we
set it up in such a way that we could support the next request for the
same thing with that VM (for example, if we want to do the same for
JDBC).  I just don't want it to be a "dedicated-to-ODBC" VM.

    Thanks,

        Stephen

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> Alvaro,
>
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> 1. psqlodbc.postgresql.org which would be its own VM running lighttpd
>> and serving the static files you have in the psqlodbc-www.git repo.
>
> For my 2c- I do *not* want a dedicated VM for this.  If we go this way,
> that VM would be for all small projects like this which have static
> webpages, ala the developer webpages and git.postgresql.org.  That VM
> wouldn't be the same one that the main site is on, but it also wouldn't
> be dedicated to serving the 20-or-so static files that make up the ODBC
> website.

I don't necessarily disagree, but for the record, the JDBC project
does have it's own VM for this purpose.

>> 2. www.postgresql.org/psqlodbc which would go through Varnish and
>> whatnot.  While this means we don't need a separate VM, but on the other
>> hand I think it will be harder to integrate getting the files from the
>> git repo and configured correctly in the vhost, etc.
>
> Updates would also need to go through the -www team if it was integrated
> as part of the main site.  There are pros and cons for each option.
>
>         Thanks,
>
>                 Stephen



--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

* Dave Page (dpage@pgadmin.org) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> >> 1. psqlodbc.postgresql.org which would be its own VM running lighttpd
> >> and serving the static files you have in the psqlodbc-www.git repo.
> >
> > For my 2c- I do *not* want a dedicated VM for this.  If we go this way,
> > that VM would be for all small projects like this which have static
> > webpages, ala the developer webpages and git.postgresql.org.  That VM
> > wouldn't be the same one that the main site is on, but it also wouldn't
> > be dedicated to serving the 20-or-so static files that make up the ODBC
> > website.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree, but for the record, the JDBC project
> does have it's own VM for this purpose.

Oh, so what you're saying is that we've already got the VM and we just
need to set up another web root on it for the ODBC project... :)

    Thanks,

        Stephen

Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Dave Page (dpage@pgadmin.org) wrote:

> > [...] for the record, the JDBC project does have it's own VM for
> > this purpose.
>
> Oh, so what you're saying is that we've already got the VM and we just
> need to set up another web root on it for the ODBC project... :)

If JDBC people don't mind (and I don't see why they would), setting up a
new vhost in the jdbc VM sounds like a plan.  Easy enough ...

We haven't heard from the odbc guys though.

--
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On 06/04/2014 06:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Dave Page (dpage@pgadmin.org) wrote:
>
>>> [...] for the record, the JDBC project does have it's own VM for
>>> this purpose.
>>
>> Oh, so what you're saying is that we've already got the VM and we just
>> need to set up another web root on it for the ODBC project... :)
>
> If JDBC people don't mind (and I don't see why they would), setting up a
> new vhost in the jdbc VM sounds like a plan.  Easy enough ...
>
> We haven't heard from the odbc guys though.

I'm happy with any of the proposed schemes.

I've also been thinking of switching from plain HTML files to using
Jekyll, like the JDBC project site did a while back. That should also be
possible with all of the proposals.

The website content is already in the psqlodbc-www repository, so if you
infrastructure guys want to take over the hosting, feel free to Just Do It.

- Heikki

Heikki,

* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakangas@vmware.com) wrote:
> On 06/04/2014 06:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >We haven't heard from the odbc guys though.
>
> I'm happy with any of the proposed schemes.

Excellent, glad to hear it.

> The website content is already in the psqlodbc-www repository, so if
> you infrastructure guys want to take over the hosting, feel free to
> Just Do It.

I think we're going to, but we'd like to talk to Dave Cramer first (he
seems to be the one handling the JDBC site updates).  He's on his way
to the airport right now but will have a few hours to kill once he gets
there and we'll work out what makes sense.

    Thanks,

        Stephen

I have no objection we only host a static site

Stephen, others,

This got forgotten in the summer.

To recap, I'd like to have a site at URL http://odbc.postgresql.org/.
The content should be the same as on the current psqlodbc website at
http://psqlodbc.projects.pgfoundry.org/. That is:

1. The main content comes from the psqlodbc-www git repository
(git://git.postgresql.org/git/psqlodbc-www.git)

2. The contents of the /docs/ path comes from the /docs directory in the
main psqlodbc git repository (git://git.postgresql.org/git/psqlodbc.git)



On 06/04/2014 08:56 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
> I have no objection we only host a static site
> On 2014-06-04 12:02 PM, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>
>> Heikki,
>>
>> * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakangas@vmware.com) wrote:
>>> On 06/04/2014 06:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>> We haven't heard from the odbc guys though.
>>>
>>> I'm happy with any of the proposed schemes.
>>
>> Excellent, glad to hear it.
>>
>>> The website content is already in the psqlodbc-www repository, so if
>>> you infrastructure guys want to take over the hosting, feel free to
>>> Just Do It.
>>
>> I think we're going to, but we'd like to talk to Dave Cramer first (he
>> seems to be the one handling the JDBC site updates).  He's on his way
>> to the airport right now but will have a few hours to kill once he gets
>> there and we'll work out what makes sense.
>>
>>          Thanks,
>>
>>                  Stephen
>>
>


--
- Heikki

Heikki,

* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakangas@vmware.com) wrote:
> This got forgotten in the summer.

Agreed, thanks for following up.

> To recap, I'd like to have a site at URL
> http://odbc.postgresql.org/. The content should be the same as on
> the current psqlodbc website at
> http://psqlodbc.projects.pgfoundry.org/. That is:
>
> 1. The main content comes from the psqlodbc-www git repository
> (git://git.postgresql.org/git/psqlodbc-www.git)
>
> 2. The contents of the /docs/ path comes from the /docs directory in
> the main psqlodbc git repository
> (git://git.postgresql.org/git/psqlodbc.git)

This all seems pretty reasonable to me.  I've cc'd the sysadmins team so
everyone can comment.  This sounds like a similar setup to other sites
that we run, which is good.

Magnus, Stefan, any thoughts about this?  I'm not sure when I'll have
time to actually look at making it happen..

Thanks!

    Stephen

> On 06/04/2014 08:56 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
> >I have no objection we only host a static site
> >On 2014-06-04 12:02 PM, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Heikki,
> >>
> >>* Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakangas@vmware.com) wrote:
> >>>On 06/04/2014 06:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >>>>We haven't heard from the odbc guys though.
> >>>
> >>>I'm happy with any of the proposed schemes.
> >>
> >>Excellent, glad to hear it.
> >>
> >>>The website content is already in the psqlodbc-www repository, so if
> >>>you infrastructure guys want to take over the hosting, feel free to
> >>>Just Do It.
> >>
> >>I think we're going to, but we'd like to talk to Dave Cramer first (he
> >>seems to be the one handling the JDBC site updates).  He's on his way
> >>to the airport right now but will have a few hours to kill once he gets
> >>there and we'll work out what makes sense.
> >>
> >>         Thanks,
> >>
> >>                 Stephen
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> - Heikki

On 01/16/2015 05:35 PM, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> There are so many, I can't count the number of times I've had issues with
> pgfoundry. I know this isn't an ODBC-specific topic, but is there any
> reason we don't just move all of the pgfoundry projects to github? Some
> projects on pgfoundry can't even be checked out due to some odd filesystem
> permission issue.

Someone needs to actually do the moving. That's the problem. There
aren't many alive projects left on pgfoundry - I believe psqlodbc is one
of the few ones left - so there's not much point writing a wholesale
migration kit anymore.

- Heikki

On 01/16/2015 04:39 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 01/16/2015 05:35 PM, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>> There are so many, I can't count the number of times I've had issues with
>> pgfoundry. I know this isn't an ODBC-specific topic, but is there any
>> reason we don't just move all of the pgfoundry projects to github? Some
>> projects on pgfoundry can't even be checked out due to some odd
>> filesystem
>> permission issue.
>
> Someone needs to actually do the moving. That's the problem. There
> aren't many alive projects left on pgfoundry - I believe psqlodbc is one
> of the few ones left - so there's not much point writing a wholesale
> migration kit anymore.

also pgfoundry is marcs personal project - the postgresql.org sysadmin
team is not at all involved in it nor do I know who actually has access
to the pgfoundry box on the OS-level.

From a sysadmin team perspective we definitily dont want to go anywhere
near providing a generalized hosting platform for projects (as already
mentioned there are plenty of code hosting sites available).
However for high profile subprojects (like jdbc or in this case odbc) we
can certainly make some exceptions if needed.


Stefan

On 01/16/2015 04:08 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Heikki,
>
> * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakangas@vmware.com) wrote:
>> This got forgotten in the summer.
>
> Agreed, thanks for following up.
>
>> To recap, I'd like to have a site at URL
>> http://odbc.postgresql.org/. The content should be the same as on
>> the current psqlodbc website at
>> http://psqlodbc.projects.pgfoundry.org/. That is:
>>
>> 1. The main content comes from the psqlodbc-www git repository
>> (git://git.postgresql.org/git/psqlodbc-www.git)
>>
>> 2. The contents of the /docs/ path comes from the /docs directory in
>> the main psqlodbc git repository
>> (git://git.postgresql.org/git/psqlodbc.git)
>
> This all seems pretty reasonable to me.  I've cc'd the sysadmins team so
> everyone can comment.  This sounds like a similar setup to other sites
> that we run, which is good.
>
> Magnus, Stefan, any thoughts about this?  I'm not sure when I'll have
> time to actually look at making it happen..

so this is done now: https://odbc.postgresql.org

couple comments:

* there is a cronjob that syncs down the two repositories every 10 minutes
* the website contained a reference to
http://psqlodbc.projects.pgfoundry.org/backups/psqlodbc-cvs.tar.bz2
which did not exist in one of the directories so I donwload it by hand
* the new website is https-only
* there is at least one reference in the -www and the main project code
that has the *.projects.postgresql.org url hardcoded
* the website is reachable over both IPv4 and IPv6 now

if there is anything more you need or if something does not work as
expected - just tell us :)


Stefan

On 01/16/2015 10:19 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> On 01/16/2015 04:08 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Heikki,
>>
>> * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakangas@vmware.com) wrote:
>>> This got forgotten in the summer.
>>
>> Agreed, thanks for following up.
>>
>>> To recap, I'd like to have a site at URL
>>> http://odbc.postgresql.org/. The content should be the same as on
>>> the current psqlodbc website at
>>> http://psqlodbc.projects.pgfoundry.org/. That is:
>>>
>>> 1. The main content comes from the psqlodbc-www git repository
>>> (git://git.postgresql.org/git/psqlodbc-www.git)
>>>
>>> 2. The contents of the /docs/ path comes from the /docs directory in
>>> the main psqlodbc git repository
>>> (git://git.postgresql.org/git/psqlodbc.git)
>>
>> This all seems pretty reasonable to me.  I've cc'd the sysadmins team so
>> everyone can comment.  This sounds like a similar setup to other sites
>> that we run, which is good.
>>
>> Magnus, Stefan, any thoughts about this?  I'm not sure when I'll have
>> time to actually look at making it happen..
>
> so this is done now: https://odbc.postgresql.org

Wonderful, many thanks!

> * the new website is https-only

Oh. Why?

> * there is at least one reference in the -www and the main project code
> that has the *.projects.postgresql.org url hardcoded

Ah, I'll go fix them

- Heikki

On 01/16/2015 09:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 01/16/2015 10:19 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>> On 01/16/2015 04:08 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> Heikki,
>>>
>>> * Heikki Linnakangas (hlinnakangas@vmware.com) wrote:
>>>> This got forgotten in the summer.
>>>
>>> Agreed, thanks for following up.
>>>
>>>> To recap, I'd like to have a site at URL
>>>> http://odbc.postgresql.org/. The content should be the same as on
>>>> the current psqlodbc website at
>>>> http://psqlodbc.projects.pgfoundry.org/. That is:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The main content comes from the psqlodbc-www git repository
>>>> (git://git.postgresql.org/git/psqlodbc-www.git)
>>>>
>>>> 2. The contents of the /docs/ path comes from the /docs directory in
>>>> the main psqlodbc git repository
>>>> (git://git.postgresql.org/git/psqlodbc.git)
>>>
>>> This all seems pretty reasonable to me.  I've cc'd the sysadmins team so
>>> everyone can comment.  This sounds like a similar setup to other sites
>>> that we run, which is good.
>>>
>>> Magnus, Stefan, any thoughts about this?  I'm not sure when I'll have
>>> time to actually look at making it happen..
>>
>> so this is done now: https://odbc.postgresql.org
>
> Wonderful, many thanks!

np

>
>> * the new website is https-only
>
> Oh. Why?

that is actually a feature :) the entire world if moving to https and
search engines started to rank pages with https (and https-only) higher
a while ago.
Note that it will still accept http requests but will redirect you to
https. it will also send a HSTS header (
HTTP Strict Transport Security) to tell clients to use https immediately
in the future to avoid the redirect and to improve security...
We are actually moving postgresql.org maintained services to that schema
over for a while now - not sure people even noticed so far :)

>
>> * there is at least one reference in the -www and the main project code
>> that has the *.projects.postgresql.org url hardcoded
>
> Ah, I'll go fix them

nice


Stefan

On 01/16/2015 10:33 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> On 01/16/2015 09:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 01/16/2015 10:19 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>>> * the new website is https-only
>>
>> Oh. Why?
>
> that is actually a feature :) the entire world if moving to https and
> search engines started to rank pages with https (and https-only) higher
> a while ago.
> Note that it will still accept http requests but will redirect you to
> https. it will also send a HSTS header (
> HTTP Strict Transport Security) to tell clients to use https immediately
> in the future to avoid the redirect and to improve security...

Okay then. It seems a bit over-the-top to force it, when you're just
serving static pages, but I won't argue.

> We are actually moving postgresql.org maintained services to that schema
> over for a while now - not sure people even noticed so far :)

Heh. I use HTTPS Everywhere myself. I don't notice when I get moved to
an https version of a site, it happens so often.

- Heikki

On 01/16/2015 07:31 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> As long as this is just static files (which it looks like from a quick
> check, but I haven't actually looked deeper), then I see no problem at all
> with this.

It's just static HTML. I've had some plans on switching to using Jekyll
or something similar to generate them, though. They would still be
served as static HTML, but it would require jekyll to run on the server,
to generate the HTML files from the sources in the git. That would be
OK, I presume? IIRC the JDBC site is generated like that too.

- Heikki

On 01/16/2015 10:34 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 01/16/2015 07:31 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> As long as this is just static files (which it looks like from a quick
>> check, but I haven't actually looked deeper), then I see no problem at
>> all
>> with this.
>
> It's just static HTML. I've had some plans on switching to using Jekyll
> or something similar to generate them, though. They would still be
> served as static HTML, but it would require jekyll to run on the server,
> to generate the HTML files from the sources in the git. That would be
> OK, I presume? IIRC the JDBC site is generated like that too.

jekyll is already installed on the VM odbc.postgresql.org is on - so no
that is not a problem(as long as we can stick to the version in debian
wheezy)


Stefan

On 01/17/2015 08:05 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> btw I think you missed two references to the old dns name in your
> changes - on in the -www repo where the faq references to itself(..) and
> one in the main repo that references the faq.

Fixed, thanks! I grepped for pgfoundry, but missed the
psqlodbc.projects.postgresql.org alias.

Actually, could we redirect the psqlodbc.projects.postgresql.org alias
to odbc.postgresql.org? I know it's a wildcard thing currently, where
*.projects.postgresql.org are redirected to *.projects.pgfoundry.org,
but if it's not too much trouble...

- Heikki