Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.

On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 13:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> 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 <project>.postgresql.org, as that is likely to
> risk name conflicts. However, that objection doesn't apply to
> <project>.projects.postgresql.org, or variants of that. So far the only
> objection I've heard to that sort of setup is "the domain name is too
> long", and as others have pointed out, it's a weak objection.
>
> Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
> dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both
> <project>.pgfoundry.org
> <project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org
> point to the same place?
>

I hate to be the fly in this ointment, but wouldn't
<project>.projects.postgresql.org be better? especially if you could
then point people to projects.postgresql.org as the main place to start
looking for projects related to postgresql.

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL