Re: Out-of-policy Planet post?
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Out-of-policy Planet post? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevEx_ro5Quw8cN6-5pFTft48is980Rs1mtu_bj2UM1jBpRg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Out-of-policy Planet post? (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Out-of-policy Planet post?
|
Список | pgsql-www |
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 08:57:02PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:14:53AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >> WWW, >> >> >> >> "8 New Oracle compatibility features in EnterpriseDB PPAS 9.2 Beta" >> >> >> >> Last I checked, the end result of discussion on this list was that no >> >> blogging about proprietary forks of PostgreSQL was permitted on Planet. >> >> It's a policy I disagreed with, but if that's our policy, we should >> >> follow it. >> >> >> >> Since Ras seems to be a new blogger, someone from WWW should just inform >> >> him of the policy and remove the post. >> > >> > Yes, I assumed someone had already done that, so I didn't say anything, >> > but I agree. >> >> Does it actually violate the policy though? It's pretty darn vague... >> I agree it's very much a borderline so somebody should probably send >> him a warning about it, but I'm not sure it's actually a strict >> violation? > > Would the post be interesting to anyone not using the EDB commercial > product? I didn't think it would be. Well, the policy says "All blogs should be about PostgreSQL or closely related technologies.". Which it kind of is, no? And it's not advertising, I think. Though I guess it might qualify as an ad, yes. I've hidden the post for now. Can someone write up a nice explanation to the author on why? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: