On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> That's not exactly what I'd call "keeping existing links working".
>
> > It is if we point developer. to wiki.
>
> Will that break anythi
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's not exactly what I'd call "keeping existing links working".
> It is if we point developer. to wiki.
Will that break anything else (ie, is that webserver serving anything
but the wiki)?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:51:06 -0400
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If all the pages get moved over with the same names (which doesn't
> > seem like it would be a problem), just changing
> > developer.po
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If all the pages get moved over with the same names (which doesn't seem
> like it would be a problem), just changing developer.postgresql.org to
> point to wiki.postgresql would seem to be sufficient to keep any existing
> links working.
That's not exact
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Are you saying that you want to keep postgresqldocs.org around?
One thing at a time. The new PG wiki looks great, seems like the next
task is to consider merging the developer's content into there. I was
hoping to propose a plan for merging work d
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
That said, we have links to the developer wiki all over the web.
So +1 on moving the developer's wiki to the other one -- but only if the
original URLs continue to work (redirecting to the new site).
While the default URL formatting on the new wiki is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:08:26 -0300
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > Like I said just observation. I like things compartmentalized but
> > there is also certainly an argument for redundant resources etc...
>
>
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Like I said just observation. I like things compartmentalized but there
> is also certainly an argument for redundant resources etc...
Are you saying that you want to keep postgresqldocs.org around?
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandProm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:43:47 +0100
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Based on your description of wiki.postgresql.org it is supposed to
> > be a replacement for techdocs.
> >
> > To me, they have different purposes.
>
> Well, we could j
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > It has been suggested by members of the web team that as the new site
> > has been setup on a dedicated VM and has been properly integrated with
> > the rest of our online infrastructure (unlike the current developer
> > wiki which is basically a quick 'n' dirty install
Dave,
> Any thoughts on whether thats a good or bad idea? Any objections?
Well, other than not breaking developer.postgresql.org links, sounds fine
to me.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make chang
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:25:53AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:16:33 +
> "Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hackers,
> >
> > As you may have noticed
> > (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2008-03/msg00470.php) we
> > now have a wiki at wiki.post
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:16:33 +
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hackers,
>
> As you may have noticed
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2008-03/msg00470.php) we
> now have a wiki at wiki.postgresql.org that is replacing techd
13 matches
Mail list logo
