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

Re: Time to get infrastructure team-based

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Time to get infrastructure team-based
Date: 2008-03-22 15:27:00
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-www
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 20 March 2008 18:26, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Dave Page wrote:
>>>  > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> 
> wrote:
>>>  > >  I saw your request for documentation on the infrastructure but I
>>>  > > don't remember anything else.  I don't se this as a core discussion
>>>  > > because the team is going to be more than core folks.
>>>  >
>>>  > I've suggested a number of times that we need to decouple all
>>>  > mail infrastructure from so it can be
>>>  > independently managed. Numerous people have been asked the same thing
>>>  > here for much longer, but have given up because the answer has always
>>>  > been no. Thats why I've been raising it in core.
>>>  OK, so maybe there is the crux.  Who says "no" unchallenged?  I don't
>>>  think I can, and I don't think anyone else in this community can either.
>> I think you can guess who says no (if not, I'll tell you out of band).
>> I seem to be the only person doing any challenging and without some
>> nods of agreement at least I cannot do much more. We do at least have
>> some more documentation as of yesterday though... but the current
>> problems are with a whole server which that doesn't help with.
> If we're serious about doing this decoupling, I'll mention again that OmniTI 
> would be interested in helping out... fwiw we helped out the PHP project 
> setup thier current infrastructure.... and have a fair amount of knowledge in 
> the email department. 

+42 on the decoupling (something I've been arguing for for years, so 
that can't come as a surprise). It will help us two-fold: First, it will 
make the system simpler, and thus easier to track errors in. Second, it 
will open it up for more people to be able to help out with fixing 
issues in it.

And when we do that, not using the expertise offered by OmniTI would be 
a big mistake. As long as they way it'd be done is for them to help us 
out with how to configure it within the parameters that our 
infrastructure works on now, and not just deliver a "dropin 
off-the-shelf solution" that we should be using. But with my 
understanding of how OmniTI works, I don't see that as being a problem.


In response to

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2008-03-22 15:30:16
Subject: Re: Time to get infrastructure team-based
Previous:From: Guillaume LelargeDate: 2008-03-22 15:23:53
Subject: Re: Patch to make some strings available to translations

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