| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-03-11 23:14:10 | The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-03-11 22:58:07 | Re: Default Stats Revisited |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-03-11 23:14:10 | The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-11 20:29:29 | Re: pgFoundry |