Re: Tech Docs and Consultants

Quoting Scott Lamb <slamb(at)slamb(dot)org>:

> Okay, I'm looking back at this thread from a week ago about using CVS
> for the websites. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but the
> more I look at it, the more I think that the arguments that convinced
> me were not good.
>
> On Tuesday, Apr 15, 2003, at 12:46 US/Central, ""
> <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> > One of the significant contributing reasons to the jobs.postgresql.org
>
> > site not
> > getting off the ground was because everyone who wanted to work on it
>
> > had to
> > commit to CVS in order to do anything.
>
> Where was this discussed? I looked for like a pgsql-jobs and
> pgsql-jobs-cvs mailing list and found nothing.

There was a private mailing list that the people who volunteered subscribed to.

> I don't think jobs.postgresql.org is a good example of this not
> working, because from what little I can see from here, CVS is not why
> it failed. No one knew about it, it didn't have the same sort of
> associated stuff that would be expected for a code project.

CVS is definitely one of the larger factors to why it failed. *But* don't get
me wrong, it wasn't the primary cause, just one of the factors.

The reason I'm against CVS for the techdocs site is because I believe it raises
the "barrier to entry" far higher than what a site based on _community edited
content_ should be.

Sure, there can be a number of ways of doing any of this, and CVS could work in
some situations... but it unnecessarily reduces the number of people that can
participate.

<snip>
> Scott