Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pgFoundry

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgFoundry
Date: 2004-03-11 23:08:09
Message-ID: 200403111808.09687.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-www
On Thursday 11 March 2004 14:55, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Peter,
>
> > Everybody had agreed to <project>.postgresql.net, and now it's gone
> > without explanation.
>
> Oh!   Well, if that's what you want, why didn't you say so?   We can
> certainly change things since it's not official yet.
>
> Like I said, I wasn't clear that there was a consensus for the
> postgresql.net scheme.   Can other people speak up about this?

I thought I did speak up... 

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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2004-03-11 23:14:10
Subject: The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-03-11 20:29:29
Subject: Re: pgFoundry

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2004-03-11 23:14:10
Subject: The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2004-03-11 22:58:07
Subject: Re: Default Stats Revisited

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group