| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgFoundry |
| Date: | 2004-03-11 20:29:29 |
| Message-ID: | 1601.1079036969@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> Everybody had agreed to <project>.postgresql.net, and now it's gone
>> without explanation.
> Like I said, I wasn't clear that there was a consensus for the postgresql.net
> scheme. Can other people speak up about this?
AFAIR that was proposed and not objected to, so I guess it has about as
much "consensus" as anything does around here.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera Munoz | 2004-03-11 21:25:25 | Re: COMMENT ON [GROUP/USER] |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-03-11 19:55:09 | Re: pgFoundry |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2004-03-11 23:08:09 | Re: pgFoundry |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-03-11 19:55:09 | Re: pgFoundry |