Re: gforge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Treat [mailto:xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net]
> Sent: 26 November 2003 20:16
> To: Dave Page; Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] gforge
>
> On Wednesday 26 November 2003 11:00, Dave Page wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org]
> > Mainly because we prefer the traditional mailing lists +
> CVS approach
> > like the core server uses. We also have a multilanguage
> website that
> > gborg can't do, but then I'm not sure that sf.net can either (for
> > example).
> >
>
> I'm pretty sure you could do your multilingual support on sf,
> though I'd need to look at your code to know for sure. sf
> gives you a standard user account ish web directory so its
> pretty flexible; the only big downside that I ever saw was
> they only give folks access to mysql databases, not
> postgresql :-( As for standard mailing lists / cvs approach,
> theres no reason you couldnt approach a sourceforge project
> the same way.
>
> BTW - I've been meaning to ask why don't we use the pgadmin
> code's language approach for the main website?

The design doesn't lend itself to a site the size of www.postgresql.org.
It's all done using php's gettext implementation, which is fine in
itself, but every html page is a mass of gettext calls, one for each
paragraph for maximum flexibility. That's fine on that site where there
are only about 6 pages, but we have around 10000 on www.postgresql.org.

> > Probably better people to ask would be Robert or Chris K-L, as they
> > actively chose sf.net as an alternative to GBorg.
> >
>
> I think the original rational for it was that great bridge
> had shut things down, so things were switched to sourceforge
> and when gborg came up there was no reason to switch back.
>
> speaking from a personal standpoint as someone who is a
> member of projects on both sites and has looked at the
> backend code for both sites, I do feel the sourceforge code
> is superior to the gborg code.

I'm sure sf.net has a lot more (paid) resources to put into it. From my
pov, I find sf.net to be over complex and confusing, but maybe that's
just me...

> from a project standpoint I
> think the information is laid out better both per project and
> on the site as a whole... for example the is no way to search
> for a specific project on gborg.. another example is the urls
> for each given project, compare:
> http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/pgweb/projdisplay.php
> vs. http://sourceforge.net/projects/phppgadmin/

You can omit the projdisplay.php, and I'm sure that 'projects' could be
symlinked to 'project'

Regards, Dave.