The reason I favour a GBorg is that VA Linux (who own sourceforge) have yet to turn in a profit and so maylook to trim some of it's assets in order to improve profitability at some point in the future.
I think it would be a bad move to shift everything to sourceforge, only to find that a year or more down the line the site dissappears/degrades to a level where it causes problems for the project, and loose the time we could have spent building up the reputation of GBorg. Al. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Neil Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tatsuo Ishii" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 2:55 AM Subject: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Update on replication > On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 21:33, Greg Copeland wrote: > > I do agree, GBorg needs MUCH higher visibility! > > I'm just curious: why do we need GBorg at all? Does it offer anything > that SourceForge, or a similar service does not offer? > > Especially given that (a) most other OSS projects don't have a site for > "related projects" (unless you count something like CPAN, which is > totally different) (b) GBorg is completely unknown to anyone outside the > PostgreSQL community and even to many people within it... > > Cheers, > > Neil > -- > Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
