Обсуждение: A small note about the difficulty of managing subprojects
So somehow I got dragooned into speaking at the Pittsburgh Perl Workshop (which is held only a couple miles from where I live, so it was hard to say no). A portion of what I had to say was that CPAN seemed to be a lot better-run than pgfoundry. So ... I couldn't help noticing that the consensus among the Perl guys seemed to be that "90% of what is on CPAN is unmaintained crap". (They agree however that the other 10% is what makes it worth doing; and furthermore that you can't easily tell which fraction any new project will fall into.) Maybe pgfoundry isn't doing so bad after all. Just sayin'. regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > So ... I couldn't help noticing that the consensus among the Perl guys > seemed to be that "90% of what is on CPAN is unmaintained crap". > (They agree however that the other 10% is what makes it worth doing; and > furthermore that you can't easily tell which fraction any new project > will fall into.) > > Maybe pgfoundry isn't doing so bad after all. Just sayin'. Yeah I would agree with that. I find that only "real" issue with PgFoundry is the PgFoundry (aka Gforge) not the quality of the projects being hosted. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > regards, tom lane >
On Oct 12, 2008, at 20:15, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Yeah I would agree with that. I find that only "real" issue with > PgFoundry is the PgFoundry (aka Gforge) not the quality of the > projects being hosted. The other thing that could use some love is searching for projects. Google doesn't rank pgFoundry stuff very highly, and Gforge's search functionality leaves something to be desired. As a lover of CPAN, I have to say that I don't use CPAN itself all that much; rather, I use search.cpan.org, which makes it dead easy to search for modules that have functionality I'm looking for. But improving search should come after fixing/upgrading Gforge, IMHO. Best, David