--- David Garamond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--snip --
>
> Also, we're targetting the developers right? Please do not consider
> ourselves as being too stupid to differentiate between postgresql.org
>
-- snip --
IMO this point of view is a short-sighted and narrow one. In
addition to try
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:02:00PM -0600, Frank Wiles wrote:
>
> As for the "length" of the URL, I think any developer or user
> of PostgreSQL is knowledgeable enough to take advantage of browser
> bookmarks. :)
I've heard this said a several times now, but that doesn't make me feel
any
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 13:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is
> > available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain
> > "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
> > > Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
> > > dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both
> > > .pgfoundry.org
> > > .pgfoundry.postgresql.org
> > > point to the same place?
>
> Sounds good to me if it's
Tom,
> > Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
> > dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both
> > .pgfoundry.org
> > .pgfoundry.postgresql.org
> > point to the same place?
Sounds good to me if it's doable via DNS.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database So
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
> dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both
> .pgfoundry.org
> .pgfoundry.postgresql.org
> point to the same place?
no objection here ... my only object is/was the leng
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:36:47 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ...
> > postgresql.net is available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we
> > are keeping that domain"clean" for any future
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is
> available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain
> "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ...
I agree we don't want .postgres
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 13:30, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote:
>
> > Having all PostgreSQL related material under one domain is beneficial to
> > the project. Our big issue isn't the domain is too long, it is difficult
> > find the subproject in the first place.
>
>
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 13:30, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote:
> >
> > > Having all PostgreSQL related material under one domain is beneficial to
> > > the project. Our big issue isn't the domain is too long, it is difficult
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> This also brings up the thought that if we do want to use pgfoundry.org,
> we'd better register pgfoundry.net and pgfoundry.com before someone else
> does.
I did all three simultaneously for exactly that reason
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networ
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 11:52, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 10:43:34AM -0600, Thomas Swan wrote:
> >
> > foundry.postgresql.org?
>
> Been through that one... Too long when you have to add project name as
> well.
I don't understand why. Presumably the postgresql.org website
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, the domain name isn't the make/break of whether going to GForge will
> > succeed ... the success will be a matter of marketing it, and making sure
> > that its project are well known ... personally, focusing on the domain is
> > like focusi
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 10:43:34AM -0600, Thomas Swan wrote:
>
> foundry.postgresql.org?
Been through that one... Too long when you have to add project name as
well.
Jeroen
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> My feeling is that we want people to consider these projects as closely
> tied to the Postgres community and so postgresql.something is just right.
> I can see there are different opinions out there though...
>
foundry.postgresql.org?
---(end of broadcast)--
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 10:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 02:42:47PM -, Dave Page wrote:
> >> We need some distinction between the core project sites and other
> >> project sites - istm that a different domain is the only way to
[ I'm pushing Robert's comment over into the pghackers thread... ]
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wasn't going to force the issue just for my own sake... but ISTM Tom, Peter,
> myself and possibly others were all confused somewhat by the switch.
> Anyway... the only real point tha
IMHO, the domain name isn't the make/break of whether going to GForge will
succeed ... the success will be a matter of marketing it, and making sure
that its project are well known ... personally, focusing on the domain is
like focusing on the name of a car when you buy it, not on its features
and/
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Gavin M. Roy wrote:
> I think having a pgfoundry.postgresql.net/org is good, but it should
> have its own identity, pgfoundry.org for the main url gets my vote for
> what it's worth.
I like the shortness myself ...
IMHO, the domain name isn't the make/break of whether going
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Here's another idea: couldn't we have a subdomain for the projects, as in
> > ".forge.postgresql.org"? Or would that be too long?
>
> That would be okay with me ...
I'd go for "too long" myself ...
---
20 matches
Mail list logo
