Thread: Namespace projects.postgresql.org
Breaking this:
Into it's own thread so people don't miss it.
Basically, the suggestion is to kill off the projects.postgresql.org namespace which has been forwarding to pgfoundry for years, given that pgfoundry is mostly unmaintained and has been for ages.
--
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:15 AM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
Breaking this:Into it's own thread so people don't miss it.Basically, the suggestion is to kill off the projects.postgresql.org namespace which has been forwarding to pgfoundry for years, given that pgfoundry is mostly unmaintained and has been for ages.
+1
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Greetings, * Magnus Hagander (magnus@hagander.net) wrote: > Breaking this: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEzo-wBhipDX%3DoNH1cUhtVLKF7h2VCSJZB2j9FeSs3c1nA%40mail.gmail.com > > Into it's own thread so people don't miss it. > > Basically, the suggestion is to kill off the projects.postgresql.org > namespace which has been forwarding to pgfoundry for years, given that > pgfoundry is mostly unmaintained and has been for ages. +1 Thanks! Stephen
Attachment
On 2/28/19 6:15 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Breaking this: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEzo-wBhipDX%3DoNH1cUhtVLKF7h2VCSJZB2j9FeSs3c1nA%40mail.gmail.com > > Into it's own thread so people don't miss it. > > Basically, the suggestion is to kill off the projects.postgresql.org > <http://projects.postgresql.org> namespace which has been forwarding to > pgfoundry for years, given that pgfoundry is mostly unmaintained and has > been for ages. +1 Jonathan
Attachment
On 2/28/19 12:15 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Breaking this: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEzo-wBhipDX%3DoNH1cUhtVLKF7h2VCSJZB2j9FeSs3c1nA%40mail.gmail.com > > Into it's own thread so people don't miss it. > > Basically, the suggestion is to kill off the projects.postgresql.org > namespace which has been forwarding to pgfoundry for years, given that > pgfoundry is mostly unmaintained and has been for ages. +1 - actually looking at the horribly outdated stuff that is on pgfoundry website, that seems like a very good idea. Is this proposal also for cleaning up the old gborg and pgfoundry data on our file-mirrors (ie: http://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/projects/) or do we want to keep those? Stefan
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes: > Is this proposal also for cleaning up the old gborg and pgfoundry data > on our file-mirrors (ie: http://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/projects/) or do > we want to keep those? Are those actually just mirrors, or is it likely that they're now the only accessible copies of that stuff? I'd be kind of inclined to keep such data just for archival reasons. Doesn't mean it has to be easily accessible of course, and we should make sure it's presented as historical rather than current projects. regards, tom lane
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:43 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes:
> Is this proposal also for cleaning up the old gborg and pgfoundry data
> on our file-mirrors (ie: http://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/projects/) or do
> we want to keep those?
Are those actually just mirrors, or is it likely that they're now the
only accessible copies of that stuff? I'd be kind of inclined to keep
such data just for archival reasons. Doesn't mean it has to be easily
accessible of course, and we should make sure it's presented as historical
rather than current projects.
They are no longer being actively updated, no. For gborg there definitely doesn't exist anything else. For pgfoundry I don't know exactly how dead it is. But the last sync was pulled sometime in 2013.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 9:35 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:43 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes:
> Is this proposal also for cleaning up the old gborg and pgfoundry data
> on our file-mirrors (ie: http://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/projects/) or do
> we want to keep those?
Are those actually just mirrors, or is it likely that they're now the
only accessible copies of that stuff? I'd be kind of inclined to keep
such data just for archival reasons. Doesn't mean it has to be easily
accessible of course, and we should make sure it's presented as historical
rather than current projects.They are no longer being actively updated, no. For gborg there definitely doesn't exist anything else. For pgfoundry I don't know exactly how dead it is. But the last sync was pulled sometime in 2013.
I have now removed the projects.postgresql.org entry from DNS.
I haven't done anything to the FTP entries, since they are as mentioned quite possibly the only copy of some of this stuff.
Perhaps we should drop a README file ínto the pub/projects directory explaining that content in these directories can be expected to be out of date? It won't help people following deep links into it, but at least it might do something?
//Magnus
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> I have now removed the projects.postgresql.org entry from DNS.
> I haven't done anything to the FTP entries, since they are as mentioned
> quite possibly the only copy of some of this stuff.
> Perhaps we should drop a README file ínto the pub/projects directory
> explaining that content in these directories can be expected to be out of
> date? It won't help people following deep links into it, but at least it
> might do something?
+1
regards, tom lane
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> I have now removed the projects.postgresql.org entry from DNS.
> I haven't done anything to the FTP entries, since they are as mentioned
> quite possibly the only copy of some of this stuff.
> Perhaps we should drop a README file ínto the pub/projects directory
> explaining that content in these directories can be expected to be out of
> date? It won't help people following deep links into it, but at least it
> might do something?
+1
Back from the dead a few months later, this has now been done!