On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 11:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Or, we just leave the current infrastructure in place and use a new one > > for all new messages going forward. We shouldn't limit our ability to > > have a decent system due to decisions of the past. > > -1. What's the point of having archives? IMO the mailing list archives > are nearly as critical a piece of the project infrastructure as the CVS > repository. We've already established that moving to a new SCM that > fails to preserve the CVS history wouldn't be acceptable. I hardly > think that the bar is any lower for mailing list archives. > > Now I think we could possibly skip the requirement suggested above for > URL compatibility, if we just leave the old archives on-line so that > those URLs all still resolve. But if we can't load all the old messages > into the new infrastructure, it'll basically be useless for searching > purposes. > > (Hmm, re-reading what you said, maybe we are suggesting the same thing, > but it's not clear. Anyway my point is that Dave's first two > requirements are real. Only the third might not be.)
We are saying the same thing. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Joshua D. Drake > > regards, tom lane > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
