What if we tried to merge ALL of the different Postgres auxiliary
projects into a forge site like sugarforge.org?
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 M. Rodner
33 Wood Avenue, Second Floor
Iselin, NJ 08830
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
> 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 *.postgresql.org to be
>>> considered official? Isn't official what we make it ... ?
>> Absolutely not (unfortunately). Official is what people "perceive" is
>> For a case and point, go to http://www.ximian.com or
>> http://www.suse.com . You will note that they no longer exist and
>> have been absorbed into Novell.com.
>> 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 projects.postgresql.org where it really
>> And as Alvaro mentioned, the same should go for planet.postgresql.org .
>> Joshua D. Drake
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Gavin M. Roy||Date: 2006-07-24 22:59:00|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Time to scale up?|
|Previous:||From: Jussi Mikkola||Date: 2006-07-24 21:31:05|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Time to scale up?|
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2006-07-24 22:54:23|
|Subject: Re: [Fwd: Small PostgreSQL Logos for the Community]|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-07-24 22:22:39|
|Subject: Back online; Trip postponed|