On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 08:24, Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
> > http://gforge.org/ is not a hosting site, that is why you only found
> 4
>
> Well that's what you get when you write messages at 2:30 AM. Should
> know
> better.
>
> But on this topic, does a site based on GForge similar to Sourceforge
> ex
Tom,
> I was quite surprised to read this, and I'm sure Dave Lawrence (RH's BZ
> maintainer) would be too. As would be the thousands of people who
> regularly use bugzilla.redhat.com.
My sincerest apologies to you and Dave Lawrence. I misunderstood what I was
being told on this list.
A rev
Tom Lane said:
> Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> C. BZ does not have any PG support in its default branch, and the RH
>> port is currently unmaintained.
>
> I was quite surprised to read this, and I'm sure Dave Lawrence (RH's BZ
> maintainer) would be too. As would be the thousands of
> http://gforge.org/ is not a hosting site, that is why you only found 4
Well that's what you get when you write messages at 2:30 AM. Should know
better.
But on this topic, does a site based on GForge similar to Sourceforge exist ?
--
Kaare Rasmussen--Linux, spil,--Tlf:
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> C. BZ does not have any PG support in its default branch, and the RH port is
> currently unmaintained.
I was quite surprised to read this, and I'm sure Dave Lawrence (RH's BZ
maintainer) would be too. As would be the thousands of people who
regularly use
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Neil Conway wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > D. One possible reservation may be integrating RT with GForge.
>
> I'm confused. Are we considering moving core backend development over
> to GForge as well, or just GBorg? (Personally the former doesn't
> strike me as a good idea, a
Folks,
Re: moving the main project to GForge/whatever: we're not considering that at
this time.
The way the discussion got entangled is that a few people mentioned wanting a
better bug tracker than then one offered with GForge, and that we are
considering using a Bug Tracker for the main proje
Neil Conway wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
D. One possible reservation may be integrating RT with GForge.
I'm confused. Are we considering moving core backend development over
to GForge as well, or just GBorg? (Personally the former doesn't
strike me as a good idea, at least initially.)
You a
Neil,
> Frankly, I think the PostgreSQL project would be sending "the wrong
> message" if we chose our tools on any basis other than functionality.
> We ought to use what works, whether it supports PG or not. Whether the
> bug tracker tool uses PostgreSQL, flat files or MS Access to store
> da
Josh Berkus wrote:
D. One possible reservation may be integrating RT with GForge.
I'm confused. Are we considering moving core backend development over
to GForge as well, or just GBorg? (Personally the former doesn't
strike me as a good idea, at least initially.)
I think that the PostgreSQL proj
Folks,
I thought that I would give everyone a summary of the current discussion of
collaboration tools and bug-trackers for our project as I read them. I
think that we are quite close to a consensus. Please comment if I've missed
something.
GBorg-->GForge migration: so far, nobody has obj
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 02:35:59AM +0100, Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
> > Why GForge?
>
> GForge seems to be technically OK. But what about the future outlook. The home
> page lists 5 projects, whereof the 4 are tests. Are you sure they will not
> fold in a month or two, will they be reliable, respon
> Why GForge?
GForge seems to be technically OK. But what about the future outlook. The home
page lists 5 projects, whereof the 4 are tests. Are you sure they will not
fold in a month or two, will they be reliable, responsive and real nice (the
three r's) ?
--
Kaare Rasmussen--Lin
ibility that it will later
turn out to be a free straitjacket.
Regards,
Paul
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 1:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Collaboration Tool Proposal
&
On Feb 26, 2004, at 6:53 PM, Joseph Tate wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
Discuss:
Has anyone talked to the people at collabnet (http://www.collab.net)?
I wonder if they'd be willing to put something together for the
PostgreSQL team? They run the tigris.org site, which is one of the
nicest O
Hi,
please look at CodeBeamer (www.intland.com) it has all featured you
described and for selected open source projects is free now.
It is a web based collaborative software development platform with
-project tracking (dashboard)
-tracker
-document manager (sharing + versioning)
-forum
-cvs, Subve
Folks,
Discuss/vote/object/scream&shout:
PROPOSAL: GBorg --> GForge Migration
Why do we want a full-service collaboration tool?
PostgreSQL is no longer a monolithic project,
but rather a collection of closely related projects. Some of
these projects are official, some are unofficial, some are
Josh Berkus wrote:
Folks,
Discuss:
Has anyone talked to the people at collabnet (http://www.collab.net)? I
wonder if they'd be willing to put something together for the PostgreSQL
team? They run the tigris.org site, which is one of the nicest OSS
collaboration sites I've worked with. GForg
Joseph,
Thanks for feedback.
> Has anyone talked to the people at collabnet (http://www.collab.net)? I
> wonder if they'd be willing to put something together for the PostgreSQL
> team? They run the tigris.org site, which is one of the nicest OSS
> collaboration sites I've worked with. GFor
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 13:19, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > What does the Apache project run?
>
> Not sure. Anyone?
>
Apache uses a home-brew collection of OSS tools. I think they have the
advantage of a larger community of web developers to help out than we
have ;-)
Josh, are you still in favor of t
Robert,
> Josh, are you still in favor of this move if the larger community does
> not want to move the main project to a gforge based system? or vice
> versa?
Not sure. Depends on what the leads of the associated projects think.
Obviously, if everyone's dead set against it, we won't do it.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:49:46AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> Not sure. Depends on what the leads of the associated projects think.
> Obviously, if everyone's dead set against it, we won't do it.
I for one am willing to try this in the near term. I've got an external
domain (pqxx.tk) poi
Jeroen,
> I for one am willing to try this in the near term.
Great!
> I've got an external
> domain (pqxx.tk) pointing to the libpqxx page on GBorg, and moving it over
> to a new URL is child's play. My main worry is transition management:
>
> - How will mailing list subscribers be affected?
23 matches
Mail list logo
