Thread: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Infrastructure TODO list

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Neil Conway
> Sent: 30 September 2004 05:09
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: PostgreSQL www; PostgreSQL advocacy
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] [pgsql-advocacy] Infrastructure TODO list
>
> On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 07:15, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > At a minimum I think we need an infrastructure TODO list
>
> I think that's a good idea.

Having just had the fun of reading all of this in one straight go (and
approving the cross-list posts at the same time), the only todo items
that actually seem to have any relevance or make any real sense are:

1) Install the updated fsck, so that if it does have to be run, it
doesn't take forever.
2) Update to the new website.

The second of which of course, has nothing to do with the server
reliability problem (and should be discussed on pgsql-www under an
appropriate thread /if/ people are willing to help rather than just tell
us to move to product X). As someone else pointed out (was it Tom?), all
the uninformed debating here just slows things down.

All the other issues are/have been worked on:

1) Search is now hosted on a pair of servers in .au, run by John Hansen.
2) The primary ftp site is on a high bandwidth, US based server. There
are ample mirrors around the world.
3) The primary website is being round-robined to some of the high
bandwidth mirrors. This is ongoing.
4) The archives are moving to a server provided by CommandPrompt. This
is happening as this discussion goes on.
5) Virtually all served content, bar some interactive stuff is served
(and mirrored) as static HTML.
6) The list servers are distributed regionally, with hub.org merely
providing the lists themselves and the central distribution server.

Now much as I like a good debate, can we please at least stop going over
old ground - my mailers getting worn out approving all these
non-subscriber posts!! :-)

Regards, Dave.

Dave Page wrote:
<snip>
> All the other issues are/have been worked on:
>
> 1) Search is now hosted on a pair of servers in .au, run by John Hansen.
> 2) The primary ftp site is on a high bandwidth, US based server. There
> are ample mirrors around the world.
> 3) The primary website is being round-robined to some of the high
> bandwidth mirrors. This is ongoing.

Um, how about GBorg.  I left work here at Telstra several hours early
yesterday because trying to access the Slony CVS on GBorg was impossible.

Dropped connections all over the place etc.  :(

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 17:49, Dave Page wrote:
> All the other issues are/have been worked on:

I'm glad to see that improvements are being made. However, part of the
reason I think we need additional changes is that it took *so long* to
make these improvements in the first place; the archives have been
semi-functional (at best!) for many months (years?), for example.

> Now much as I like a good debate, can we please at least stop going over
> old ground

I think part of the problem may be that while this may be "old ground"
to a relatively small cabal of individuals, the community at large isn't
aware of the efforts being made to improve the infrastructure, and is
frustrated by the current state of affairs. It is easy to dismiss the
discussion as "uninformed debate" -- but if Bruce and other active
contributors are "uninformed" about the current state of affairs, I
think that might suggest a problem in and of itself. Perhaps maintaining
a public TODO list of legitimate items for improvement would be one way
to inform people about what work needs to be done?

-Neil

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> As someone else pointed out (was it Tom?), all the
> uninformed debating here just slows things down.

Huh? How can putting a new website in place possibly move
any slower than it has? I first complained about specific
problems with the website over two years ago! The answer always
seems to be "well, we have a new version that is about to go
in place any day now" I'm also not sure why debate needs to
be perceived as a bad thing - this is an open-source project, and
one would hope that applies to the whole project: DNS, web site,
mailing lists, etc.

> Now much as I like a good debate, can we please at least stop
> going over old ground

That's the problem, isn't it - this is old ground. That's why Bruce
raised the thread in the fiest place - after all these years, we
still seem to be spinning our wheels. Problems with the site tend to
be a) not noticed right away, and b) fixed slowly if at all. People
reporting problems or offering suggestions are often met with
hostility and rudeness. The -www list was a secret and exclusive
club (although it is better now).

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200409300734

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFBW+/PvJuQZxSWSsgRAgavAJ0V0y0rw8srOrx1ZapsZdJro9bLPwCfeT/5
OdG95I9y1mwyFH/ZDFR+Rok=
=j3Vb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 07:52:32PM +1000, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 17:49, Dave Page wrote:
> > All the other issues are/have been worked on:
>
> I'm glad to see that improvements are being made. However, part of the
> reason I think we need additional changes is that it took *so long* to
> make these improvements in the first place; the archives have been
> semi-functional (at best!) for many months (years?), for example.

Please note that there is *still* no way to get the archives in mbox or
similar format.  This is a standard features of a lot of the lists I've
seen and I've used it a lot of times.  It's amazingly useful sometimes.

Both Neil and I (at least) have asked for this in the past, several
times.


(hmm ... is that "Neil and I" or "Neil and me"?)

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"There was no reply" (Kernel Traffic)