Re: Launching PostgreSQL KB Project Mark 2

On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 19:43 +0100, Gevik babakhani wrote:
> Well excuse me for trying to organize a home for whatever experimentations I
> was doing for the KB. Maybe it was better to not have been enthusiastic and
> certainly not to have shown *ideas* and *concepts* which have raised all
> kinds questions and irritations on people.

I don't think anyone was questioning what you are doing Gevik. Don't
take it personally. I think that this whole thing has been just one big
misscommunication.

At this point it should be dropped in favor of being productive. The
direction in terms of initial development have been decided, they will
take place in the kennisgres project mailing lists on the PostgreSQL
Projects, PgFoundry server.

After that we can all come back and fight and argue about all the things
that he said, that she said, that I said, that you said. That way we can
waste even more time.

Joshua D. Drake

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pgsql-www-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-www-
> > owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Josh Berkus
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 6:17 PM
> > To: pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > Cc: Magnus Hagander; Marc G. Fournier
> > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Launching PostgreSQL KB Project Mark 2
> >
> > Magnus,
> >
> > > But this is *just a techdocs replacement*, not a whizz-bang KB. It
> > > fulfills the techdocs requirements for easy editing and searching, and
> > > the communitys erquirements for easy maintenance. It does not fullfill
> > > all the other KB requiremetns (I'm sure, though I haven't seen teh whole
> > > list since it's not finished - but there are definitly several that
> > > aren't). It places the bar a lot lower, making it easier to get done...
> >
> > Hmmm ... well, any good KB should subsume techdocs as one aspect of its
> > functionality. I don't like to see duplicated effort if we can help it.
> > Heck, for the much-maligned corporate KB effort step #2 will be evaluating
> > existing KB projects to see if any of them meets requirements or can be
> > made
> > to with a minimum of effort. And even if we do something custom it will
> > probably be based on GreenPlum's custom KB I'm currently building (in PHP
> > &
> > PL/pgSQL).
> >
> > On the other hand, I wouldn't blame you if you thought that the latest KB
> > effort was liable to founder and die and that you needed to have a back-
> > up.
> > It wouldn't be the first one. But in that case I'd suggest looking at
> > adapting something existing (like Bricolage, Framewerk, Drupal, etc.)
> > rather
> > than coding up from scratch. If you keep your requirements simple, at
> > least
> > one of these should suffice, and has the tremendous advantage of having
> > external code maintainence, documentation, and help.
> >
> > > We're not against it. I think the irkness (sp? :-):-) ) comes from the
> > fact
> > > that the ongoing project (Gevik had been regularly demo'ing his
> > > progress) was essentially ripped out from here without our knowledge and
> > > reformed on a pgFoundry site,
> >
> > Ah, Kennisgres was put up months ago (like, August). I'd no idea that
> > Gevik
> > hadn't discussed it here. I can see that that would be a rude shock.
> >
> > > and was about to be re-specced possibly in
> > > complete contradition to what we had originally thrashed out - without
> > > so much as a 'by your leave'.
> >
> > Well, unfortunately no spec document ever came out of dicussion on this
> > list.
> > In fact, I was on this list for that discussion, and my recall of it is
> > that
> > there was a lot of shooting the breeze but no real decisions were actually
> > made. At least, nothing that had a consensus behind it.
> >
> > One of the big issues -- in fact, THE big issue -- with increasing
> > participation in WWW administration is the total and complete lack of
> > documentation for any WWW decisions, infrastructure, or code. While I can
> > understand lagging in documenting stuff (like, I have a draft of the
> > release
> > PR procedure I have yet to discuss online despite being on my HDD for a
> > month), it's extremely irrational for people on this list to pitch a fit
> > at
> > potential contributors for not psychically understanding what WWW wants or
> > not reading the WWW list back to the beginning of time.
> >
> > That is, it's one thing to say: "Hey, you should probably read this
> > thread, we
> > already discussed it here ____________", and another thing entirely to say
> > "You asshole! We already decided that, why didn't you pay attention!"
> > Currently, this list has an awful lot of the former.
> >
> > This isn't just the KB. It affects the whole web infrastructure. For
> > example, we've been running on the new web site code for almost 2 years,
> > and
> > how many translations of the site have there been? Exactly none. Why?
> > Zero documentation on how to translate the site.
> >
> > If our project can insist that all database code patches come with full
> > documentation, I think maybe it's time that we start insisting that all
> > WWW
> > patches come with documentation.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Berkus
> > Aglio Database Solutions
> > San Francisco
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> > match
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
--
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/