Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Gborg: announcement by 404

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 01:34:05PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > For all the discussions on why doing this so quickly was such a bad idea, do
> > you realize that *so far*, there have been a whole three *active* projects that
> > hadn't been moved over? pgweb, pljava and pgjdbc ...
>
> That is completely irrelevant. My point is a simple one: we're a mature
> project, and we should act like grown ups with our infrastructure. That
> means rather more _specific_ notice to users about when things will go away.
> The way it happened, it looked like someone woke up one morning and said, "I
> think I'll take down gborg today." If we want people to trust our software
> with their critical data, we have to act as though predictability is a good
> thing.
>
> Nobody is suggesting that it was ok to have gborg linger the way it did.
> All I'm saying is that the next time we shut something down, we need to tell
> _everybody_ well in advance exactly _when_ we think things will go away
> (emergencies are, of course, excepted). This doesn't mean four-hour
> "maintenance windows" at midnight or any of that. But it does mean that,
> some weeks in advance of something going away, there should be some evidence
> that the changes are planned.

Agreed. I assume it was just done this way due to frustration, which
isn't a great way to deal with things, but I think we all understand it.

(I have to say I was kind of shocked at the rapidity of it, but at this
stage, I wasn't going to slow down something I have been waiting for for
years. ;-) )

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +