> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 12:50 +0200, Jehan-Guillaume (ioguix) de Rorthais > wrote: >> On 01/06/2011 11:14, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> >>> 4) Prepare everything necessary for the new server >> >> >> >> Well, my only concern here would be to have yet another login credential. >> > >> > No way:-) >> > >> >>> - Source repository (probably starting with CVS, then migrate to >> >>> git.hub?) >> >> >> >> github would be perfect for 3.1. Do you have an account ? You can create >> >> the pgpool organization here, but all pgpool commiters need all to have >> >> a github account then. >> > >> > My concern is, I would like to bring CVS histories to git. I know >> > PostgreSQL developers worked very hard and took long time to do that. >> > If it takes so long time, we need to continue to use CVS. >> >> AFAIK, Guillaume Lelarge is working on this. >> > > IIRC, PostgreSQL developers worked hard on it for two reasons: they > modified the history in the CVS files (the ",v" files), which was a > really bad mistake at first, and they ran into a bug with cvs that broke > some tags. They worked with the developer who maintained the cvs to git > conversion tool and all that work helped to have a better tool. So, if > you didn't change manually the ",v" files in the CVS repository, it > should be pretty simple. > > I tried once to do the conversion, and got some issues with encoding. > > I guess I'll work on it ASAP, just to make sure we can do it. then it'll > be your call: either you're happy with the git repository and we keep > it, or you're not really confident with it, and we drop it. > >> In my opinion, as soon as 3.1 is out, we should freeze the development >> and focus on cvs -> git conversation whatever it takes. We already >> discussed the problem inherited from cvs while thinking about releasing >> 3.1 sooner, we should not use CVS for 3.2. >> > > +1 > > I know that using git for pgAdmin really makes a difference in my way of > contributing to it (ie, more code written, less burden). > >> > >> >>> - Mailing lists >> >> >> >> Following our discussion during the PGCon2011, I think we can ask for a >> >> dedicated mailing list @postgresql.org >> > >> > Well, I would like to use my own mailing list server. What I want to >> > do is, assigned sequence number in subject. This is extremly >> > usefull. It's a "logical unique identifier" for each message and >> > people could easily referer to particular message. I will have hard >> > time to move existing pgfoundry mail archives because they don't have >> > the "logical identifier". >> > > > Mails from PostgreSQL mailing lists have specific ID you can search for > in the mailing list archives.
Are you talking about message id? It's not user friendly. Or X-UID? It is removed in the archive on the web. Also community mailing list is not so reliable. >> >>> - Wiki and blogs >> >> >> >> Yeah, the website and a wiki could be hosted on your pgpool.net server I >> >> guess. But then, it would be awesome if the wiki could authenticate >> >> using our postgresql community accounts. >> > >> > Do you know how to do it techinicaly? >> > >> >> I'm not personally convinced about blogs though. >> > >> > Me too:-) Just it seems every develper site has "developer blogs" >> > these days. Probably the blog is used only for site managers. >> > > > You probably mean a Planet? Planet PgPool would be cool :) Definitely no. -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp _______________________________________________ Pgpool-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-hackers
