Обсуждение: Updating Sourceforge
We again don't have anyone updating Sourceforge: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pgsql/ The posted version is 9.0. I again suggest we remove it. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > We again don't have anyone updating Sourceforge: > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/pgsql/ > > The posted version is 9.0. I again suggest we remove it. And I again second this suggestion. --Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> We again don't have anyone updating Sourceforge: >> >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/pgsql/ >> >> The posted version is 9.0. I again suggest we remove it. > > And I again second this suggestion. Thirded. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 11 April 2013 19:50, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
-- On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:Thirded.
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> We again don't have anyone updating Sourceforge:
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/pgsql/
>>
>> The posted version is 9.0. I again suggest we remove it.
>
> And I again second this suggestion.
-1
This is a form of advocacy for the project, just like listing anywhere else.
Putting correct and useful information out there is what we should be trying to do more of, not less.
I completely agree that you guys shouldn't do it, but that doesn't mean nobody does it at all.
I'll arrange it, if you don't object.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 11 April 2013 19:50, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> >> We again don't have anyone updating Sourceforge: >> >> >> >> http://sourceforge.net/projects/pgsql/ >> >> >> >> The posted version is 9.0. I again suggest we remove it. >> > >> > And I again second this suggestion. >> >> Thirded. > > > -1 > > This is a form of advocacy for the project, just like listing anywhere else. Is it really? Does anybody care about sourceforge these days? And is it good advocacy if people go there and download old versions? > Putting correct and useful information out there is what we should be trying > to do more of, not less. > > I completely agree that you guys shouldn't do it, but that doesn't mean > nobody does it at all. We are clearly not capable of keeping the sourceforge records up to date. We've had multiple different people in charge of it, and it has *never* been updated on time more than once after a new person picks it up. In this case, it's clearly lacking by *years*. We do have the same issue at freshmeat, but at least there is no *code* uploaded there. > I'll arrange it, if you don't object. While I don't trust you any less than the previous people who have volunteered to maintain this and then failed one or two releases later, I personally think we've reached the point where we should just accept that we can't do it, and get rid of it. We can keep switching maintainers, but in the end, I don't think it's worth it. That's IMO, of course, others may vary. --Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 11 April 2013 20:09, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
-- > This is a form of advocacy for the project, just like listing anywhere else.Is it really? Does anybody care about sourceforge these days?
I don't. But where would you list, if not there? Do we just give up trying to maintain any external listings? (Or perhaps we never were bothered)
And is it good advocacy if people go there and download old versions?
I do take your point, that being out of date is worse than nothing at all.
But I think there is a place better than that, if we organise that.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 11 April 2013 19:50, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> >>> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >>>>> We again don't have anyone updating Sourceforge: >>>>> >>>>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/pgsql/ >>>>> >>>>> The posted version is 9.0. I again suggest we remove it. >>>> >>>> And I again second this suggestion. >>> >>> Thirded. >> >> >> -1 >> >> This is a form of advocacy for the project, just like listing anywhere else. > > Is it really? Does anybody care about sourceforge these days? > > And is it good advocacy if people go there and download old versions? > >> Putting correct and useful information out there is what we should be trying >> to do more of, not less. >> >> I completely agree that you guys shouldn't do it, but that doesn't mean >> nobody does it at all. > > > We are clearly not capable of keeping the sourceforge records up to date. > > We've had multiple different people in charge of it, and it has > *never* been updated on time more than once after a new person picks > it up. In this case, it's clearly lacking by *years*. > > We do have the same issue at freshmeat, but at least there is no > *code* uploaded there. > > >> I'll arrange it, if you don't object. > > While I don't trust you any less than the previous people who have > volunteered to maintain this and then failed one or two releases > later, I personally think we've reached the point where we should just > accept that we can't do it, and get rid of it. We can keep switching > maintainers, but in the end, I don't think it's worth it. > > That's IMO, of course, others may vary. While I do agree with Simon in that it is an avenue for increased visibility of the PG project, the track record of keepingthe info up-to-date is poor - even looking at the older versions of files listed, the releases were not kept up todate. With that said, if Sourceforge has some sort of API that we could plug into and just write a request to upload new releasesfor PG to, it may be worthwhile. But if we cannot automate it, I don't think it's worthwhile. Jonathan
On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:36 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
On Apr 11, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:On 11 April 2013 19:50, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>wrote:On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:We again don't have anyone updating Sourceforge:http://sourceforge.net/projects/pgsql/The posted version is 9.0. I again suggest we remove it.And I again second this suggestion.Thirded.-1This is a form of advocacy for the project, just like listing anywhere else.Is it really? Does anybody care about sourceforge these days?And is it good advocacy if people go there and download old versions?Putting correct and useful information out there is what we should be tryingto do more of, not less.I completely agree that you guys shouldn't do it, but that doesn't meannobody does it at all.We are clearly not capable of keeping the sourceforge records up to date.We've had multiple different people in charge of it, and it has*never* been updated on time more than once after a new person picksit up. In this case, it's clearly lacking by *years*.We do have the same issue at freshmeat, but at least there is no*code* uploaded there.I'll arrange it, if you don't object.While I don't trust you any less than the previous people who havevolunteered to maintain this and then failed one or two releaseslater, I personally think we've reached the point where we should justaccept that we can't do it, and get rid of it. We can keep switchingmaintainers, but in the end, I don't think it's worth it.That's IMO, of course, others may vary.
While I do agree with Simon in that it is an avenue for increased visibility of the PG project, the track record of keeping the info up-to-date is poor - even looking at the older versions of files listed, the releases were not kept up to date.
With that said, if Sourceforge has some sort of API that we could plug into and just write a request to upload new releases for PG to, it may be worthwhile. But if we cannot automate it, I don't think it's worthwhile.
We would be able to script it - SourceForge provides an SSH interface for updating files: http://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/SSH/ and http://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/Files/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Magnus Hagander wrote: ... > We are clearly not capable of keeping the sourceforge records up to date. > > We've had multiple different people in charge of it, and it has > *never* been updated on time more than once after a new person picks > it up. In this case, it's clearly lacking by *years*. I don't buy this at all. We regularly clear much steeper technical and social hurdles than this. Why not post a help wanted ad on -general about this? The echo chamber of -www is probably not the best place to recruit for things outside our immediate infrastructure. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201304111927 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAlFnRw4ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjkrwCfUfK7vYjFKH0B+bQRr2fb0EtB yXkAoJ5gtNC6R5PdE5NhHZ4TNQc0xHHN =paBf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:28:59PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > ... > > We are clearly not capable of keeping the sourceforge records up to date. > > > > We've had multiple different people in charge of it, and it has > > *never* been updated on time more than once after a new person picks > > it up. In this case, it's clearly lacking by *years*. > > I don't buy this at all. We regularly clear much steeper technical and > social hurdles than this. Why not post a help wanted ad on -general > about this? The echo chamber of -www is probably not the best place > to recruit for things outside our immediate infrastructure. How many times to we have to continue to fail until we give up and say it isn't important enough to maintain? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On 12 April 2013 00:39, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
-- On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:28:59PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:How many times to we have to continue to fail until we give up and say
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> ...
> > We are clearly not capable of keeping the sourceforge records up to date.
> >
> > We've had multiple different people in charge of it, and it has
> > *never* been updated on time more than once after a new person picks
> > it up. In this case, it's clearly lacking by *years*.
>
> I don't buy this at all. We regularly clear much steeper technical and
> social hurdles than this. Why not post a help wanted ad on -general
> about this? The echo chamber of -www is probably not the best place
> to recruit for things outside our immediate infrastructure.
it isn't important enough to maintain?
I think we're conflating two things here. The fact that we haven't maintained it is no evidence that it isn't important and so no reason to stop trying.
If we have volunteers, we should continue to maintain it. Clearly whoever didn't do it before is not the right person(s) to continue, but again, no evidence that new people wouldn't change that situation. If there is nobody to maintain it, then clearly we should stop.
If there is evidence or some feeling that it isn't worthwhile maintaining it, that is a different issue and one worth discussing.
Where do we list our existence? Which places should we do so, or continue to do so? My feeling is that external listings are quite important overall, though I accept that Sourceforge does have to prove itself as a place worthy of attention against other possibilities.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 01:11:49AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 12 April 2013 00:39, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > I think we're conflating two things here. The fact that we haven't maintained > it is no evidence that it isn't important and so no reason to stop trying. > > If we have volunteers, we should continue to maintain it. Clearly whoever > didn't do it before is not the right person(s) to continue, but again, no > evidence that new people wouldn't change that situation. If there is nobody to > maintain it, then clearly we should stop. > > If there is evidence or some feeling that it isn't worthwhile maintaining it, > that is a different issue and one worth discussing. > > Where do we list our existence? Which places should we do so, or continue to do > so? My feeling is that external listings are quite important overall, though I > accept that Sourceforge does have to prove itself as a place worthy of > attention against other possibilities. The problem is this comes up every few years, someone says it is important and should be done, then repeat. I have no faith this will change. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> The problem is this comes up every few years, someone says it is
> important and should be done, then repeat. I have no faith this will
> change.
There was some mention upthread of the possibility of automating the
updates. If we could do that, it'd be worth doing. I agree that
expecting manual updates to get done meets the classic definition of
insanity.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:00:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > The problem is this comes up every few years, someone says it is > > important and should be done, then repeat. I have no faith this will > > change. > > There was some mention upthread of the possibility of automating the > updates. If we could do that, it'd be worth doing. I agree that > expecting manual updates to get done meets the classic definition of > insanity. OK, seems it is not as bad as I thought. The project 'pgsql' is indeed in as pathetic shape as we said: https://sourceforge.net/projects/pgsql/ What _is_ interesting is that the Sourceforce editors created their own PostgreSQL project page: https://sourceforge.net/projects/postgresql.mirror/ that is being updated --- I see 9.2.4 updated on 2013-04-04, which was our release date, and I even see download stats from that date forward. What I did just now was to mark 'pgsql' as moved to 'postgresql.mirror'; unfortunately the text is not clickable. FYI, I only knew about 'pgsql' because I received email from them because I am an admin. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:11:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > What _is_ interesting is that the Sourceforce editors created their own > PostgreSQL project page: > > https://sourceforge.net/projects/postgresql.mirror/ > > that is being updated --- I see 9.2.4 updated on 2013-04-04, which was > our release date, and I even see download stats from that date forward. > > What I did just now was to mark 'pgsql' as moved to 'postgresql.mirror'; > unfortunately the text is not clickable. FYI, I only knew about 'pgsql' > because I received email from them because I am an admin. I have now made the text clickable to redirect to the sf-editor-updated version. :-) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:11:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> What _is_ interesting is that the Sourceforce editors created their own >> PostgreSQL project page: >> >> https://sourceforge.net/projects/postgresql.mirror/ >> >> that is being updated --- I see 9.2.4 updated on 2013-04-04, which was >> our release date, and I even see download stats from that date forward. >> >> What I did just now was to mark 'pgsql' as moved to 'postgresql.mirror'; >> unfortunately the text is not clickable. FYI, I only knew about 'pgsql' >> because I received email from them because I am an admin. > > I have now made the text clickable to redirect to the sf-editor-updated > version. :-) If there is another one. That's automatically updated. Why not just *drop* this one? --Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 07:52:08PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:11:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> What _is_ interesting is that the Sourceforce editors created their own > >> PostgreSQL project page: > >> > >> https://sourceforge.net/projects/postgresql.mirror/ > >> > >> that is being updated --- I see 9.2.4 updated on 2013-04-04, which was > >> our release date, and I even see download stats from that date forward. > >> > >> What I did just now was to mark 'pgsql' as moved to 'postgresql.mirror'; > >> unfortunately the text is not clickable. FYI, I only knew about 'pgsql' > >> because I received email from them because I am an admin. > > > > I have now made the text clickable to redirect to the sf-editor-updated > > version. :-) > > If there is another one. That's automatically updated. Why not just > *drop* this one? I can mark it as an "Abandoned" project --- done. Is that better? https://sourceforge.net/p/pgsql/admin/overview That is my only other option (active, moved, abandoned). I don't think so, but take a look. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 07:52:08PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:11:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >> What _is_ interesting is that the Sourceforce editors created their own >> >> PostgreSQL project page: >> >> >> >> https://sourceforge.net/projects/postgresql.mirror/ >> >> >> >> that is being updated --- I see 9.2.4 updated on 2013-04-04, which was >> >> our release date, and I even see download stats from that date forward. >> >> >> >> What I did just now was to mark 'pgsql' as moved to 'postgresql.mirror'; >> >> unfortunately the text is not clickable. FYI, I only knew about 'pgsql' >> >> because I received email from them because I am an admin. >> > >> > I have now made the text clickable to redirect to the sf-editor-updated >> > version. :-) >> >> If there is another one. That's automatically updated. Why not just >> *drop* this one? > > I can mark it as an "Abandoned" project --- done. Is that better? > > https://sourceforge.net/p/pgsql/admin/overview > > That is my only other option (active, moved, abandoned). I don't think > so, but take a look. No, that seems really bad. It now says "As of 2013-04-12, this project is no longer under active development." I also notice we've had 49 downloads this week. Which is pretty bad since it's all of outdated versions. Perhaps you should change it back to the link, but also try to find out if there is a way to *delete* the current downloads that are horribly out of date. Since people are clearly using them. --Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 08:27:18PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 07:52:08PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:11:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> >> What _is_ interesting is that the Sourceforce editors created their own > >> >> PostgreSQL project page: > >> >> > >> >> https://sourceforge.net/projects/postgresql.mirror/ > >> >> > >> >> that is being updated --- I see 9.2.4 updated on 2013-04-04, which was > >> >> our release date, and I even see download stats from that date forward. > >> >> > >> >> What I did just now was to mark 'pgsql' as moved to 'postgresql.mirror'; > >> >> unfortunately the text is not clickable. FYI, I only knew about 'pgsql' > >> >> because I received email from them because I am an admin. > >> > > >> > I have now made the text clickable to redirect to the sf-editor-updated > >> > version. :-) > >> > >> If there is another one. That's automatically updated. Why not just > >> *drop* this one? > > > > I can mark it as an "Abandoned" project --- done. Is that better? > > > > https://sourceforge.net/p/pgsql/admin/overview > > > > That is my only other option (active, moved, abandoned). I don't think > > so, but take a look. > > No, that seems really bad. It now says "As of 2013-04-12, this project > is no longer under active development." I didn't think you were going to like that, but you had to see it. ;-) > I also notice we've had 49 downloads this week. Which is pretty bad > since it's all of outdated versions. > > Perhaps you should change it back to the link, but also try to find > out if there is a way to *delete* the current downloads that are > horribly out of date. Since people are clearly using them. OK, changed to "Moved", and I have removed all the download files associated with our project. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +