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

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Time to scale up?

From: "Gavin M(dot) Roy" <gmr(at)ehpg(dot)net>
To: derek(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Cc: Jussi Mikkola <jussi(dot)mikkola(at)bonware(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Time to scale up?
Date: 2006-07-24 22:59:00
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-www
You mean like PgFoundry?

On Jul 24, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Derek M. Rodner wrote:

> Newbie alert....
> What if we tried to merge ALL of the different Postgres auxiliary  
> projects into a forge site like
> For those of us that are "new", it seems illogical for projects to  
> be scattered all over the place...  I am not implying that they  
> should be part of the physical Postgres package, but co-location of  
> all of these tools makes them more accessible and gives "one-stop  
> shopping" for those who are Postgres users....
> If we could get the resources to create a repository like  
> SugarForge it would also have many indirect benefits:
> 1.  A single repository for everyone to go consolidates many varied  
> projects and might reduce redundancy
> 2.  Let's outsiders see just how big the Postgres community really is
> 3.  Might entice others to get involved
> 4.  Raises the Postgres profile in the market
> 5.  Gives a more "professional" face to Postgres which it needs to  
> jump to the next level
> Now, I understand the efforts involved in this, but I wanted to at  
> least plant the seed.
> Derek
> Derek M. Rodner
> Director, Marketing
> EnterpriseDB Corporation
> 33 Wood Avenue, Second Floor
> Iselin, NJ  08830
> 732.331.1333
> Jussi Mikkola wrote:
>> I think there are some very good points in this, and in this  
>> thread in general. Atleast worth a few thoughts.
>> First about the different domains. Yes, it is very much like  
>> different brands. And what is good or bad in it? Well, those  
>> projects that are not under the PostgreSQL umbrella, are not that  
>> official, and not consider part of the "package". But, on the  
>> other hand, it could be beneficial for the main project, if the  
>> "package" would contain things like PgAdmin, Slony etc. I believe,  
>> that it would make the total package more "valuable" in business  
>> terms.
>> But, if those parts would be in the same package, then that would  
>> mean more responsibility for the core. Someone would need to say  
>> that this is beta, and this is ready. But that would be important  
>> for the users, so it could be worth it. How it would be done, that  
>> would require some talks between all those projects. But I can  
>> see, that the current core could focus on the database itself, and  
>> then there could be another organ that would look at all the  
>> joining parts.
>> When those projects are clearly separate, it also means that there  
>> are a lot of brands. And if we want to promote all these projects,  
>> it will require additional effort. So, instead of making one  
>> strong brand, we kind of try to make one brand, and then we try to  
>> promote also many other brands that are necessary for the one  
>> brand. No focus.
>> From the advocacy perspective I see joining projects under a  
>> common umbrella as a very good idea. Of course, those other  
>> projects should also see it beneficial, and it would probably  
>> require a lot of work to make these projects more connected. But I  
>> am quite sure, that it would at least make the advocacy part a lot  
>> easier. There would be more to talk about, and the links would not  
>> be pointed out to third party websites.
>> Rgs,
>> Jussi
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>>> Well that is a very good point, because I have always  
>>>>> considered planetpostgresql not a part of the PostgreSQL  
>>>>> project. I hadn't even considered that it is a postgresql  
>>>>> project until just now.
>>>> Just curious, but why does it have to be * to be  
>>>> considered official?  Isn't official what we make it ... ?
>>> Absolutely not (unfortunately). Official is what people  
>>> "perceive" is official.
>>> For a case and point, go to or http:// 
>>> . You will note that they no longer exist and have  
>>> been absorbed into
>>> The reason for this is to show an official integration, so that  
>>> people are comfortable with the respective brands because they  
>>> are comfortable with Novell.
>>> The same applies for our sub projects, until they are recognized  
>>> under the official project domain name. They will always be  
>>> considered third party.
>>>> The thing is, everyone spends their time putting pgFoundry down  
>>>> as being 'second class' ... of course everyone else is going to  
>>>> consider it such also ... it isn't second class, nor was it ever  
>>>> meant to be ... if ppl promoted, pushed and advertised it more,  
>>>> it would be as 'second class' as common to go to as CPAN is for  
>>>> Perl ...
>>> Perhaps the fact that everyone is putting down pgFoundry as  
>>> second class is telling to the point that we need to promote it's  
>>> perception? E.g; get it under where it  
>>> really belongs.
>>> And as Alvaro mentioned, the same should go for  
>>> .
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Joshua D. Drake
>> ---------------------------(end of  
>> broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
> ---------------------------(end of  
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

In response to

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2006-07-25 00:03:35
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Time to scale up?
Previous:From: Derek M. RodnerDate: 2006-07-24 22:30:48
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Time to scale up?

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2006-07-25 00:03:35
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Time to scale up?
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2006-07-24 22:54:23
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Small PostgreSQL Logos for the Community]

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group