Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 11654.1079116607@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: On pgweb project (Re: Update on 'portal' changes) ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. |
Список | pgsql-www |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is > available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain > "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ... I agree we don't want <project>.postgresql.org, as that is likely to risk name conflicts. However, that objection doesn't apply to <project>.projects.postgresql.org, or variants of that. So far the only objection I've heard to that sort of setup is "the domain name is too long", and as others have pointed out, it's a weak objection. Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both <project>.pgfoundry.org <project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org point to the same place? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: