Thread: RFC: Hosting mailing lists of 3rd party projects
Over the last few years, postgresql.org only hosted pgsql-* and pgadmin* mailing lists. A few weeks before, we added psycopg2, too, because the project needed a mailing list (since their machine died and data was not recovered). Before we add more, I think we need to define a policy for hosting mailing lists of 3rd party projects. Some of the 3rd party projects already have their own server (like slony.info), and some of them host their lists on pgfoundry (like pgpool) -- and we have been hosting pgadmin mailing list for a long time. However, there are some more projects, like postgres-xc, need only mailing list -- not web space, etc. The current issue with postgres-xc mailing lists is that we see some RAC advertisements appended to the emails, which is embarrassing. IMHO, postgresql.org can provide mailing list service to such projects, unless they have their own domain already, or they are not hosted at pgfoundry. Comments? -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 00:41 +0530, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > Over the last few years, postgresql.org only hosted pgsql-* and pgadmin* > mailing lists. A few weeks before, we added psycopg2, too, because the > project needed a mailing list (since their machine died and data was not > recovered). > > Before we add more, I think we need to define a policy for hosting > mailing lists of 3rd party projects. > > Some of the 3rd party projects already have their own server (like > slony.info), and some of them host their lists on pgfoundry (like > pgpool) -- and we have been hosting pgadmin mailing list for a long > time. > > However, there are some more projects, like postgres-xc, need only > mailing list -- not web space, etc. The current issue with postgres-xc > mailing lists is that we see some RAC advertisements appended to the > emails, which is embarrassing. > > IMHO, postgresql.org can provide mailing list service to such projects, > unless they have their own domain already, or they are not hosted at > pgfoundry. > > Comments? > I think any third party project that wants to utilize the .org infrastructure should use pgfroundry. JD -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
> I think any third party project that wants to utilize the .org
> infrastructure should use pgfroundry.
So they should create a whole pgFoundry project just to have a mailing
list? -1
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 15:35 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > I think any third party project that wants to utilize the .org > > infrastructure should use pgfroundry. > > So they should create a whole pgFoundry project just to have a mailing > list? -1 Actually that isn't a requirement. PgFoundry just uses mailman. JD > > > -- > -- Josh Berkus > PostgreSQL Experts Inc. > http://www.pgexperts.com > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
Excerpts from Devrim GÜNDÜZ's message of lun feb 21 16:11:32 -0300 2011: > > Over the last few years, postgresql.org only hosted pgsql-* and pgadmin* > mailing lists. A few weeks before, we added psycopg2, too, because the > project needed a mailing list (since their machine died and data was not > recovered). > > Before we add more, I think we need to define a policy for hosting > mailing lists of 3rd party projects. So what policy do you propose? I would suggest the following: 1 Use common sense to determine whether a project belongs into the postgresql.org list infrastructure. Strong majority isneeded to accept a project. 2 Projects already on pgfoundry do not apply. 3 Lists for anything other than PostgreSQL core need to be categorized under "project lists" (not "user lists"). If someproject has too many lists, a new category may be needed. Thus, under rule (3) above, I think we should move pgsql-jdbc and pgsql-odbc from "user lists" to "project lists". (Not a big deal -- they just change group under which they are listed, in the archives.pg.org pages). -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
2011/2/21 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>: > IMHO, postgresql.org can provide mailing list service to such projects, > unless they have their own domain already, or they are not hosted at > pgfoundry. I'm generally in favor of us helping out adjacent development communities, if we can. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
2011/2/21 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>: > However, there are some more projects, like postgres-xc, need only > mailing list -- not web space, etc. The current issue with postgres-xc > mailing lists is that we see some RAC advertisements appended to the > emails, which is embarrassing. > > IMHO, postgresql.org can provide mailing list service to such projects, > unless they have their own domain already, or they are not hosted at > pgfoundry. > > Comments? +1 with a couple requests. * Can we identify who the people with mailing list creation power are, and make an announcement somewhere as they are created? If that's here (pgsql-www), fine. * Can we make it easier to change who is the mailing list administrator, or have a policy about who is the administrator for these lists? I'm guessing that this may change more frequently in the side projects than it does in the core pgsql lists. I've asked to be removed as an administrator from a few lists multiple times, with no response. -selena -- http://chesnok.com
2011/2/22 Selena Deckelmann <selena@chesnok.com>: > 2011/2/21 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>: > >> However, there are some more projects, like postgres-xc, need only >> mailing list -- not web space, etc. The current issue with postgres-xc >> mailing lists is that we see some RAC advertisements appended to the >> emails, which is embarrassing. >> >> IMHO, postgresql.org can provide mailing list service to such projects, >> unless they have their own domain already, or they are not hosted at >> pgfoundry. >> >> Comments? > > +1 with a couple requests. > > * Can we identify who the people with mailing list creation power are, That would be Marc. > and make an announcement somewhere as they are created? If that's here > (pgsql-www), fine. -www seems reasonable - and of course it goes on the website list too, automatically. > * Can we make it easier to change who is the mailing list > administrator, or have a policy about who is the administrator for > these lists? I'm guessing that this may change more frequently in the > side projects than it does in the core pgsql lists. I've asked to be > removed as an administrator from a few lists multiple times, with no > response. I don't think we can make it easier to change - at least not easily so :) But there can certainly be a policy, if we feel the need. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 13:32 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > Before we add more, I think we need to define a policy for hosting > > mailing lists of 3rd party projects. > > So what policy do you propose? In my previous email, I wrote: "IMHO, postgresql.org can provide mailing list service to such projects, unless they have their own domain already, or they are not hosted at pgfoundry." which is: > I would suggest the following: > > 1 Use common sense to determine whether a project belongs into the > postgresql.org list infrastructure. Strong majority is needed to > accept a project. > > 2 Projects already on pgfoundry do not apply. > > 3 Lists for anything other than PostgreSQL core need to be categorized > under "project lists" (not "user lists"). If some project has too > many > lists, a new category may be needed. Pretty much what I have in my mind. > Thus, under rule (3) above, I think we should move pgsql-jdbc and > pgsql-odbc from "user lists" to "project lists". (Not a big deal -- > they just change group under which they are listed, in the > archives.pg.org pages). +1. Cheers, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 11:31 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > I think any third party project that wants to utilize the .org > infrastructure should use pgfroundry. Well, as you know, it becomes PITA after some point. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 13:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm generally in favor of us helping out adjacent development > communities, if we can. Agreed. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Marc, please review this thread. Excerpts from Selena Deckelmann's message of lun feb 21 20:49:35 -0300 2011: > +1 with a couple requests. > > * Can we identify who the people with mailing list creation power are, IIRC that's Marc, Stefan and Dave. > and make an announcement somewhere as they are created? If that's here > (pgsql-www), fine. +1 on this. > * Can we make it easier to change who is the mailing list > administrator, or have a policy about who is the administrator for > these lists? I'm guessing that this may change more frequently in the > side projects than it does in the core pgsql lists. +1 on this. Of course, we are not going to change admins for the core mailing lists. > I've asked to be removed as an administrator from a few lists multiple > times, with no response. Whom did you ask? -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
2011/2/25 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>: > Marc, please review this thread. > > > Excerpts from Selena Deckelmann's message of lun feb 21 20:49:35 -0300 2011: > >> +1 with a couple requests. >> >> * Can we identify who the people with mailing list creation power are, > > IIRC that's Marc, Stefan and Dave. Technically, yes (we have root in the right places). I'm not sure if Stefan or I have any clue how to actually do so (I know I don't). -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> Technically, yes (we have root in the right places). I'm not sure if
> Stefan or I have any clue how to actually do so (I know I don't).
Personally, I think that if we're going to create additional project
lists, we should launch a mailman instance instead of adding them to
majordomo. That way we can spread admin duties around, since we have a
bunch of people who know mailman, and only one who understands majordomo.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> Technically, yes (we have root in the right places). I'm not sure if >> Stefan or I have any clue how to actually do so (I know I don't). > > Personally, I think that if we're going to create additional project > lists, we should launch a mailman instance instead of adding them to > majordomo. That way we can spread admin duties around, since we have a > bunch of people who know mailman, and only one who understands majordomo. +1000 -selena -- http://chesnok.com
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 16:53 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Technically, yes (we have root in the right places). I'm not sure if > > Stefan or I have any clue how to actually do so (I know I don't). > > Personally, I think that if we're going to create additional project > lists, we should launch a mailman instance instead of adding them to > majordomo. That way we can spread admin duties around, since we have a > bunch of people who know mailman, and only one who understands majordomo. +1 > > -- > -- Josh Berkus > PostgreSQL Experts Inc. > http://www.pgexperts.com > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of jue feb 24 21:53:35 -0300 2011: > > > Technically, yes (we have root in the right places). I'm not sure if > > Stefan or I have any clue how to actually do so (I know I don't). > > Personally, I think that if we're going to create additional project > lists, we should launch a mailman instance instead of adding them to > majordomo. That way we can spread admin duties around, since we have a > bunch of people who know mailman, and only one who understands majordomo. We have two -- I do understand it. I just don't have the privs. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> Technically, yes (we have root in the right places). I'm not sure if >> Stefan or I have any clue how to actually do so (I know I don't). > > Personally, I think that if we're going to create additional project > lists, we should launch a mailman instance instead of adding them to > majordomo. That way we can spread admin duties around, since we have a > bunch of people who know mailman, and only one who understands majordomo. Actually, two that know majordomo .. Alvaro does as well ... hadn't thoguht of it before, but would it make sense to provide Alvaro actual access to the admin side of majordomo? I personally have no issues with that ... thoughts? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of jue feb 24 21:53:35 -0300 2011: > Personally, I think that if we're going to create additional project > lists, we should launch a mailman instance instead of adding them to > majordomo. That way we can spread admin duties around, since we have a > bunch of people who know mailman, and only one who understands majordomo. Managing a single set of archive files is already enough trouble. ... hey, but then, I think Mailman has an option to not do the pipermail stuff and just stash the archives in mboxes just like Majordomo. That would let us handle both things together. If that really works, maybe the archive part wouldn't be that problematic after all. (But I'm not gonna moderate any Mailman crap.) -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Marc, please review this thread. > > > Excerpts from Selena Deckelmann's message of lun feb 21 20:49:35 -0300 2011: > >> +1 with a couple requests. >> >> * Can we identify who the people with mailing list creation power are, > > IIRC that's Marc, Stefan and Dave. And, purely by oversight, you should be part of that list as well, I think ... unless there is a reason you *wouldn't* want it ... >> and make an announcement somewhere as they are created? If that's here >> (pgsql-www), fine. > > +1 on this. +1 on this too ... note that the only lists that I've created of late have been pugs related lists, as required by Selena (usually) ... I just figured there was a reason why nothing was announced publicly *shrug* >> * Can we make it easier to change who is the mailing list >> administrator, or have a policy about who is the administrator for >> these lists? I'm guessing that this may change more frequently in the >> side projects than it does in the core pgsql lists. > > +1 on this. Of course, we are not going to change admins for the core > mailing lists. 'k, what do you mean by 'change who is the mailing list admin'? if you go to http://mail.postgresql.org/mj/mj_wwwadm and login with your password, you can go under Configuration -> Passwords and add / remove administrators for those lists you are already an admin for ... ... I realize this was never mentioned before, but, honestly, nobody had ever asked about it either ... its something all list admins (from what I can tell from here) have access to ... >> I've asked to be removed as an administrator from a few lists multiple >> times, with no response. > > Whom did you ask? +1 ... I try and respond to any requestions you (selena) have made directly to me in timely manners ... dont' recall any request to removce as admin :( Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of jue feb 24 21:53:35 -0300 2011: > >> Personally, I think that if we're going to create additional project >> lists, we should launch a mailman instance instead of adding them to >> majordomo. That way we can spread admin duties around, since we have a >> bunch of people who know mailman, and only one who understands majordomo. > > Managing a single set of archive files is already enough trouble. > > ... hey, but then, I think Mailman has an option to not do the pipermail > stuff and just stash the archives in mboxes just like Majordomo. That > would let us handle both things together. If that really works, maybe > the archive part wouldn't be that problematic after all. (But I'm not > gonna moderate any Mailman crap.) My experience with Mailman is exactly that also ... it is great for the end user, but crap from an admin side fo things, especially if you want to do sstuff from the command line ... there really is no reason why things for majordomo are "pivoting" on me, since, as Alvaro has admitted, and I have, there is more then one of us that knows the system ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of jue feb 24 21:53:35 -0300 2011: >> >>> Technically, yes (we have root in the right places). I'm not sure if >>> Stefan or I have any clue how to actually do so (I know I don't). >> >> Personally, I think that if we're going to create additional project >> lists, we should launch a mailman instance instead of adding them to >> majordomo. That way we can spread admin duties around, since we have a >> bunch of people who know mailman, and only one who understands majordomo. > > We have two -- I do understand it. I just don't have the privs. Let's shorten the conversation ... can you send me your public dsa (or rsa) key, and I'll add it to the majordomo account on mail.postgresql.org so that you are able to login? I have no qualms about continuing to be primary, but having a backup with knowledge would definitely be "a good thing" ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 00:21 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of jue feb 24 21:53:35 -0300 2011: > > > Personally, I think that if we're going to create additional project > > lists, we should launch a mailman instance instead of adding them to > > majordomo. That way we can spread admin duties around, since we have a > > bunch of people who know mailman, and only one who understands majordomo. > > Managing a single set of archive files is already enough trouble. > > ... hey, but then, I think Mailman has an option to not do the pipermail > stuff and just stash the archives in mboxes just like Majordomo. mailman archives are generated from an mbox. So you can do whatever you want. JD -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > Personally, I think that if we're going to create additional project > lists, we should launch a mailman instance instead of adding them to > majordomo. That way we can spread admin duties around, since we have a > bunch of people who know mailman, and only one who understands majordomo. >> We have two -- I do understand it. I just don't have the privs. Make that three. But like Alvaro, I have limited privs. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201102242239 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAk1nJJUACgkQvJuQZxSWSshW6gCg8VX9NCDjjT27+wSFwTht/JDA 2MsAoIQkVitmFn6hY9u9OJYuCO4ofyw2 =ayK9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 04:19, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> >>> Technically, yes (we have root in the right places). I'm not sure if >>> Stefan or I have any clue how to actually do so (I know I don't). >> >> Personally, I think that if we're going to create additional project >> lists, we should launch a mailman instance instead of adding them to >> majordomo. That way we can spread admin duties around, since we have a >> bunch of people who know mailman, and only one who understands majordomo. > > Actually, two that know majordomo .. Alvaro does as well ... hadn't thoguht > of it before, but would it make sense to provide Alvaro actual access to the > admin side of majordomo? I personally have no issues with that ... > thoughts? +1, assuming he actually wants to get stuck with that ;) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 04:27, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of jue feb 24 21:53:35 -0300 2011: >> >>> Personally, I think that if we're going to create additional project >>> lists, we should launch a mailman instance instead of adding them to >>> majordomo. That way we can spread admin duties around, since we have a >>> bunch of people who know mailman, and only one who understands majordomo. >> >> Managing a single set of archive files is already enough trouble. >> >> ... hey, but then, I think Mailman has an option to not do the pipermail >> stuff and just stash the archives in mboxes just like Majordomo. That >> would let us handle both things together. If that really works, maybe >> the archive part wouldn't be that problematic after all. (But I'm not >> gonna moderate any Mailman crap.) > > My experience with Mailman is exactly that also ... it is great for the end > user, but crap from an admin side fo things, especially if you want to do > sstuff from the command line ... To be honest, I find both mailman and majordomo2 to be very user-unfriendly towards end users. Mailman sucking slightly less, but still definitely sucking. Mailman has much less sucky web interface, but a much more sucky mail interface. I assume it's the sucky mail interface that makes you (alvaro) say you won't moderate it? AFAICT, that's workflow dependent really - I wouldn't touch the mj2 moderation stuff because it was horribly annoying, and would only do the mailman moderation if forced to. Prior, that is, to developing an actual android app to make the process acceptable *to me*. At which point it's equally acceptable for mj2 and for mailman, except everything is a lot slower for mj2 (because it's built off the web interface, and the mj2 web interface is crap) You can do reasonable stuff from the commandline in mailman as well, but it's ugly and not necessarily well documented. OTOH, *all* of majordomo2 is badly documented, AFAIK. I don't think that would make a big difference. What I am more worried about is that there seems to be no upstream maintenance of mj2. I mean, their website hasn't been touched in more than 10 years! And given the *huge* security hole that was found in it recently (taht AFAIK was patched manually by Marc?), it's rather obvious there is no maintenance. And that worries me a lot. Mailman certainly has it's own share of issues with that. It seems that the legendary mailman3 is actually going to get beaten to the punch by Duke Nukem Forever, which says something.. But the larger linux distributions (fedora, debian etc) at least seem to be doing active work on maintaining the version they ship. Which makes me feel a lot more comfortable with that product. Do we really know the system well enough to be comfortable maintaining *all* of it? Or is there actually some top secret upstream maintainenance that just missed a *huge* security hole for 10 years? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Magnus Hagander wrote: > What I am more worried about is that there seems to be no upstream > maintenance of mj2. I mean, their website hasn't been touched in more > than 10 years! And given the *huge* security hole that was found in it > recently (taht AFAIK was patched manually by Marc?), it's rather > obvious there is no maintenance. And that worries me a lot. Actually, apparently that bug was patched earlier then we found it ... the thing mj2 is lacking is a proper commit mailing list, so I wasn't aware of hte patch :( > Do we really know the system well enough to be comfortable maintaining > *all* of it? Or is there actually some top secret upstream > maintainenance that just missed a *huge* security hole for 10 years? Again, that was more a communications issue with the mj2 devs then an oversight on their part ... as Alvaro can attest, when I posted to the mj2 list about it, the firts rsponse I got out of Jason (core deeveloper) was "already fixed in CVS" ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 15:26, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> What I am more worried about is that there seems to be no upstream >> maintenance of mj2. I mean, their website hasn't been touched in more >> than 10 years! And given the *huge* security hole that was found in it >> recently (taht AFAIK was patched manually by Marc?), it's rather >> obvious there is no maintenance. And that worries me a lot. > > Actually, apparently that bug was patched earlier then we found it ... the > thing mj2 is lacking is a proper commit mailing list, so I wasn't aware of > hte patch :( Eek. But you're at least saying they have a source code repository somewhere? :D Do they actually make releases as well? >> Do we really know the system well enough to be comfortable maintaining >> *all* of it? Or is there actually some top secret upstream maintainenance >> that just missed a *huge* security hole for 10 years? > > Again, that was more a communications issue with the mj2 devs then an > oversight on their part ... as Alvaro can attest, when I posted to the mj2 > list about it, the firts rsponse I got out of Jason (core deeveloper) was > "already fixed in CVS" ... Hmm. Last I checked I wasn't even able to find a working mailinglist for it :-) At least not one with archives. Can you give me a pointer to where I find that - it would be good to have around for reference... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Eek. But you're at least saying they have a source code repository > somewhere? :D Do they actually make releases as well? CVS repo, yes, that is where we pull our code from ... releaeses, no ... > Hmm. Last I checked I wasn't even able to find a working mailinglist > for it :-) At least not one with archives. Can you give me a pointer > to where I find that - it would be good to have around for > reference... mj2-dev@lists.mj2.org is what both Alvaro and I are on ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
Hi! 2011/2/24 Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org>: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Excerpts from Selena Deckelmann's message of lun feb 21 20:49:35 -0300 >> 2011: >> >>> and make an announcement somewhere as they are created? If that's here >>> (pgsql-www), fine. >> >> +1 on this. > > +1 on this too ... note that the only lists that I've created of late have > been pugs related lists, as required by Selena (usually) ... I just figured > there was a reason why nothing was announced publicly *shrug* Cool! Then everyone agrees announcing new lists here is good. I started a wiki page to document this discussion: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Mailing_List_Creation_Policies >>> * Can we make it easier to change who is the mailing list >>> administrator, or have a policy about who is the administrator for >>> these lists? I'm guessing that this may change more frequently in the >>> side projects than it does in the core pgsql lists. >> >> +1 on this. Of course, we are not going to change admins for the core >> mailing lists. > > 'k, what do you mean by 'change who is the mailing list admin'? if you go > to http://mail.postgresql.org/mj/mj_wwwadm and login with your password, > you can go under Configuration -> Passwords and add / remove administrators > for those lists you are already an admin for ... Hmm, maybe I just didn't know how to do that. I am the admin for lists which I don't need to be part of, so I will try that and report back if I can't make the change. > ... I realize this was never mentioned before, but, honestly, nobody had > ever asked about it either ... its something all list admins (from what I > can tell from here) have access to ... I asked a while back, but no big deal, Marc. :) We'll sort it all out now. I asked for the pgus-board list to be deactivated, but didn't specifically CC Marc: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2010-04/msg00017.php My request for admin rights to be removed probably wasn't cc'd to the list. But like I said, it's not a big deal, obviously, since I hadn't bothered to ask about it since April. :) I do think that non-core pgsql lists will require a little more frequent management, but as long as more than just one person has the ability to make changes or point people to the right places to reconfigure things themselves, I think we'll be totally fine. -selena -- http://chesnok.com
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 23:27 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > ... hey, but then, I think Mailman has an option to not do the pipermail > > stuff and just stash the archives in mboxes just like Majordomo. That > > would let us handle both things together. If that really works, maybe > > the archive part wouldn't be that problematic after all. (But I'm not > > gonna moderate any Mailman crap.) > > My experience with Mailman is exactly that also ... it is great for the > end user, but crap from an admin side fo things, especially if you want to > do sstuff from the command line ...' That isn't my experience at all. I can do anything from the command line, from templates, to archive management, to manual subscription etc... and we (CMD) have hundreds of mailman lists. JD -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 23:27 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >>> ... hey, but then, I think Mailman has an option to not do the pipermail >>> stuff and just stash the archives in mboxes just like Majordomo. That >>> would let us handle both things together. If that really works, maybe >>> the archive part wouldn't be that problematic after all. (But I'm not >>> gonna moderate any Mailman crap.) >> >> My experience with Mailman is exactly that also ... it is great for the >> end user, but crap from an admin side fo things, especially if you want to >> do sstuff from the command line ...' > > That isn't my experience at all. I can do anything from the command > line, from templates, to archive management, to manual subscription > etc... and we (CMD) have hundreds of mailman lists. Its all what one gets used to, I guess .. I can do alot of stuff with mysql that I can't with postgresql (ie. run wordpress) ... doesnt' mean I'm going to start a general adoption of that ... We run Mj2 here ... we have for 15 years now and it works ... we have two ppl here that know it, and the documentation for Mj2 is such that anyone with half a clue could get up to speed on it fairly fast ... Due to lack of foresight on my part, I hadn't offered/given Alvaro access ... not through lack of confidence in his ability to manage it, only because I never thought of it, and nobody else mentioned it before ... am working to rectify that ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Selena Deckelmann wrote: > I started a wiki page to document this discussion: > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Mailing_List_Creation_Policies New lists should be announced (and requested) through sysadmins@postgresql.org ... it is not a web related activity, nor maintained by the Web Team :) Also, it should be announced to pgsql-announce if you want to get broader distribution ... > Hmm, maybe I just didn't know how to do that. I am the admin for lists > which I don't need to be part of, so I will try that and report back if > I can't make the change. Let me know ... I've always done config changes through command line myself ... I believe you can also do this through email, but I really don't know how the syntax for *that* works, although, if you find that that might be useful, I can figure it out and let you know ... > I asked a while back, but no big deal, Marc. :) We'll sort it all out now. > > I asked for the pgus-board list to be deactivated, but didn't > specifically CC Marc: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2010-04/msg00017.php Ah, see, that would explain it ... I'm not on pgsql-www, since I don't have anyting to do with Web related activities ... mail server related requests should go through sysadmins@postgresql.org, where I am subscribed ... that would explain why I never saw that request :( > I do think that non-core pgsql lists will require a little more > frequent management, but as long as more than just one person has the > ability to make changes or point people to the right places to > reconfigure things themselves, I think we'll be totally fine. And make sure you send your requests to the right mailing list :) mail != www, therefore not relevant to pgsql-www ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 13:26 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Its all what one gets used to, I guess .. I can do alot of stuff with > mysql that I can't with postgresql (ie. run wordpress) ... doesnt' mean > I'm going to start a general adoption of that ... > > We run Mj2 here ... we have for 15 years now and it works ... we have two > ppl here that know it, and the documentation for Mj2 is such that anyone > with half a clue could get up to speed on it fairly fast ... I wasn't suggesting we change .org proper. JD -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
All,
If Greg, Alvaro, and Marc all have the ability to create new lists and
retrieve admin's lost passwords, then I withdraw my suggestion that we
use mailman for the new lists.
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011, Josh Berkus wrote: > All, > > If Greg, Alvaro, and Marc all have the ability to create new lists and > retrieve admin's lost passwords, then I withdraw my suggestion that we > use mailman for the new lists. Alvaro sent me his rsa/dsa key today, just haven't had a sec yet to plug it in ... on todo for this weekend ... as for greg ... Greg who? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:03, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > All, > > If Greg, Alvaro, and Marc all have the ability to create new lists and > retrieve admin's lost passwords, then I withdraw my suggestion that we > use mailman for the new lists. agreed in principle. One other thing we might *want* to consider, however, is if we actually *want* to host these on the main mailinglist server, or if we want a separate instance for "third party lists" or whatever we'd call them. To separate services and make sure we don't "risk" our main lists in any way, maintenance-way. (regardless of what software is used) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 12:12 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:03, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > All, > > > > If Greg, Alvaro, and Marc all have the ability to create new lists and > > retrieve admin's lost passwords, then I withdraw my suggestion that we > > use mailman for the new lists. > > agreed in principle. > > One other thing we might *want* to consider, however, is if we > actually *want* to host these on the main mailinglist server, or if we > want a separate instance for "third party lists" or whatever we'd call > them. To separate services and make sure we don't "risk" our main > lists in any way, maintenance-way. > > (regardless of what software is used) May I just note that I strongly disagree with any of this unless we get a written procedure (you know, documentation!) out of how to handle this? JD > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > Alvaro sent me his rsa/dsa key today, just haven't had a sec yet to plug > it in ... on todo for this weekend ... as for greg ... Greg who? Me. Sorry for not cc'ing you on my response to this thread. Keep forgetting you are not subscribed to -www. Although for the project's sanity, I would like you to consider subscribing. It's pretty low volume, and we seem to end up Cc'ing quite a bit about things like this. :) - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201102261559 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAk1pabUACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgmJwCg36SHzSJb2YJD/8TRVRfcIi9X iLsAoIlTbcl3RwosfbvoIpZlpyXBif0E =A4O4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----