Folks,

As we discussed a couple weeks ago, Marc, Andrew, Tim Perdue, Chris Ryan and I 
are testing implementing GForge in place of GBorg for associated projects for 
PostgreSQL.

One thing which was suggested initially was that this new project hosting site 
be at www.postgresql.net with projects being <projectname>.postgresql.net.

However, some of the "porting" team felt that it would be confusing for people 
who typed in www.postgresql.net to be presented with the GForge interface, 
and suggested that we use the domain after what we'll be calling the new 
Tool, namely pgFoundry, thus putting stuff at www.pgFoundry.org and 
<projectname>.pgfoundry.org.

So far, only 4 people, total, have expressed opinons on the matter.  I'm 
throwing this on Hackers so that members of projects we will be hosting can 
indicate whether they:

A) Favor www.postgresql.net
B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org
C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless.

Thanks for your time!

-- 
-Josh Berkus
 Aglio Database Solutions
 San Francisco


Thu, 11 Mar 2004 15:14:10 -0800
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:14:10PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 
> So far, only 4 people, total, have expressed opinons on the matter.  I'm 
> throwing this on Hackers so that members of projects we will be hosting can 
> indicate whether they:
> 
> A) Favor www.postgresql.net
> B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org
> C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless.

I'm not crazy about the name pgfoundry, but otherwise I think it's the
better choice.  The "www." problem could be circumvented by renaming the
project, perhaps, but I think it's best to keep a distinction between
"Postres, the database" and "related projects."


Jeroen


Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:24:20 +0100
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:14:10PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> A) Favor www.postgresql.net
>> B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org
>> C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless.

> I'm not crazy about the name pgfoundry, but otherwise I think it's the
> better choice.  The "www." problem could be circumvented by renaming the
> project, perhaps, but I think it's best to keep a distinction between
> "Postres, the database" and "related projects."

Actually, proposal (A) does provide such a separation: notice that the
projects would go under *.postgresql.net, with the core database remaining
at *.postgresql.org.  I am not sure if that will provoke confusion or
not, but I think I like it better than pgfoundry because it is clear
that the domains are related.  pgfoundry seems a bit, um, random.

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:01:47 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org 
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:01:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Actually, proposal (A) does provide such a separation: notice that the
> projects would go under *.postgresql.net, with the core database remaining
> at *.postgresql.org.  I am not sure if that will provoke confusion or
> not, but I think I like it better than pgfoundry because it is clear
> that the domains are related.  pgfoundry seems a bit, um, random.

Agree with the last bit, but I really feel that the difference between
postgresql.org and postgresql.net is too subtle--at least for people who
don't work with either very often.

Here's another idea: couldn't we have a subdomain for the projects, as in
"<project>.forge.postgresql.org"?  Or would that be too long?


Jeroen


Fri, 12 Mar 2004 01:07:49 +0100
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
I think having a pgfoundry.postgresql.net/org is good, but it should 
have its own identity, pgfoundry.org for the main url gets my vote for 
what it's worth.

Gavin

Josh Berkus wrote:

>Folks,
>
>As we discussed a couple weeks ago, Marc, Andrew, Tim Perdue, Chris Ryan and I 
>are testing implementing GForge in place of GBorg for associated projects for 
>PostgreSQL.
>
>One thing which was suggested initially was that this new project hosting site 
>be at www.postgresql.net with projects being <projectname>.postgresql.net.
>
>However, some of the "porting" team felt that it would be confusing for people 
>who typed in www.postgresql.net to be presented with the GForge interface, 
>and suggested that we use the domain after what we'll be calling the new 
>Tool, namely pgFoundry, thus putting stuff at www.pgFoundry.org and 
><projectname>.pgfoundry.org.
>
>So far, only 4 people, total, have expressed opinons on the matter.  I'm 
>throwing this on Hackers so that members of projects we will be hosting can 
>indicate whether they:
>
>A) Favor www.postgresql.net
>B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org
>C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless.
>
>Thanks for your time!
>
>  
>


Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:11:11 -0800
"Gavin M. Roy" <gmr@ehpg.net>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl> writes:
> Here's another idea: couldn't we have a subdomain for the projects, as in
> "<project>.forge.postgresql.org"?  Or would that be too long?

That would be okay with me ...

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:16:41 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org 
Jeroen,

> > Here's another idea: couldn't we have a subdomain for the projects, as in
> > "<project>.forge.postgresql.org"?  Or would that be too long?

Hmmm ... wouldn't that be rather awkward with the projects with longer names?

http://orapgsqlviews.foundry.postgresql.org

That's 39 characters, not including the http ...

To speak up, I'd rather have either options (A) or (B) thank this option.  

-- 
-Josh Berkus
 Aglio Database Solutions
 San Francisco


Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:38:25 -0800
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org


Tom Lane wrote:

>"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl> writes:
>  
>
>>On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:14:10PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>A) Favor www.postgresql.net
>>>B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org
>>>C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>I'm not crazy about the name pgfoundry, but otherwise I think it's the
>>better choice.  The "www." problem could be circumvented by renaming the
>>project, perhaps, but I think it's best to keep a distinction between
>>"Postres, the database" and "related projects."
>>    
>>
>
>Actually, proposal (A) does provide such a separation: notice that the
>projects would go under *.postgresql.net, with the core database remaining
>at *.postgresql.org.  I am not sure if that will provoke confusion or
>not, but I think I like it better than pgfoundry because it is clear
>that the domains are related.  pgfoundry seems a bit, um, random.
>
>  
>

I'm really going to try hard to stay out of all the hoohaa that seems to 
be boiling ... I got involved arse-end foremost because I was stupid 
enough to tell Josh that he could call on me if he needed things done in 
Perl or Java, and he took sufficient license from that to inveigle me 
into a lot of other stuff, none of which looks remotely like Perl or 
Java. :-). I do enough webbish stuff by day and would far rather spend 
*my* time in a modest way making postgresql even better than it is.

There are 2 name issues - the base site and the project sites. If I am 
web surfing and I go to foo.net or www.foo.net I expect (other things 
being equal) to go to the main page for organization foo. Going to some 
other page for the foo organization is just a bit weird. Now I know 
there are exceptions, millions of them, but they always jar slightly. 
That's why we settled on pgfoundry.net.

There is no reason, however, that the individual projects could not live 
under both domains, i.e. projname.postgresql.net and 
projname.pgfoundry.net. This is very doable.

As for "pgfoundry" - the name isn't set in concrete. In fact it is 
entirely trivial to change. Suggest another that might be better.

cheers

andrew




Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:13:35 -0500
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org

On Mar 12, 2004, at 9:07 AM, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:01:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Actually, proposal (A) does provide such a separation: notice that the
>> projects would go under *.postgresql.net, with the core database 
>> remaining
>> at *.postgresql.org.  I am not sure if that will provoke confusion or
>> not, but I think I like it better than pgfoundry because it is clear
>> that the domains are related.  pgfoundry seems a bit, um, random.
>
> Agree with the last bit, but I really feel that the difference between
> postgresql.org and postgresql.net is too subtle--at least for people 
> who
> don't work with either very often.

Just to speak up (as an avid lurker), I agree with Jeroen that this 
distinction is quite subtle and may cause confusion. Some may even 
expect the two to resolve to the same site, as a lot of popular sites 
own .com/.net/.org, all resolving to the same site.

This can be read as support for *.pgfoundry.org, *.postgresql.org, or 
*.pgfoundry.postgresql.org.

*.pgfoundry.org is short and clearly distinguished from postgresql.org

*.postgresql.org is short, and clearly associated with postgresql.org 
(of course!), but there's no clear distinction that the former gborg 
projects are separate from, say, developer.postgresql.org or 
techdocs.postgresql.org. Is this distinction important? Maybe not?

*.pgfoundry.postgresql.org is longer, clearly associated with 
postgresql.org, and clear that it's a distinct part of postgresql.org

Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com


Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:06:17 +0900
Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.com>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl> writes:
> > Here's another idea: couldn't we have a subdomain for the projects, as in
> > "<project>.forge.postgresql.org"?  Or would that be too long?
>
> That would be okay with me ...

I'd go for "too long" myself ...


----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:29:50 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Gavin M. Roy wrote:

> I think having a pgfoundry.postgresql.net/org is good, but it should
> have its own identity, pgfoundry.org for the main url gets my vote for
> what it's worth.

I like the shortness myself ...

IMHO, the domain name isn't the make/break of whether going to GForge will
succeed ... the success will be a matter of marketing it, and making sure
that its project are well known ... personally, focusing on the domain is
like focusing on the name of a car when you buy it, not on its features
and/or price ...


----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 00:34:03 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
> 
> IMHO, the domain name isn't the make/break of whether going to GForge will
> succeed ... the success will be a matter of marketing it, and making sure
> that its project are well known ... personally, focusing on the domain is
> like focusing on the name of a car when you buy it, not on its features
> and/or price ...


Really? What about BMW, Volvo or Mercedes?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



> 
> 
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
> Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>       subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:32:26 -0800
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
Michael Glaesemann wrote:
> Just to speak up (as an avid lurker), I agree with Jeroen that this 
> distinction is quite subtle and may cause confusion. Some may even 
> expect the two to resolve to the same site, as a lot of popular sites 
> own .com/.net/.org, all resolving to the same site.

Speaking of .com vs .net vs .org, anyone remember the mysql.com vs 
mysql.org fiasco?

Anyway, if I can vote, I'll vote for postgresql.net (for the lack of 
better choices). I agree with Tom that "pgfoundry" is kind of random. 
It's not apparent at all that it's a PostgreSQL entity. Besides, Tom & 
Marc is already listed as the registrant of several domains including 
postgresql.com. Why not use them?

Also, we're targetting the developers right? Please do not consider 
ourselves as being too stupid to differentiate between postgresql.org 
and postgresql.net... If people don't like to type long names, we can 
always do automatic redirection between <projname>.postgresql.net, 
postgresql.org/projects/<projname>, <projname>.projects.postgresql.org, 
etc. Or even perhaps use tinyurl :-)

-- 
dave


Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:03:55 +0700
David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
--- David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> wrote:
 --snip --
> 
> Also, we're targetting the developers right? Please do not consider 
> ourselves as being too stupid to differentiate between postgresql.org
> 
 -- snip --

    IMO this point of view is a short-sighted and narrow one. In
addition to trying to bring a more structured and developed
infrastructure to 3rd party developers this should also ease the
difficulty many non-developers have in finding related software to the
PostgreSQL project. This fact as well as the others should be taken
into consideration when making the decision on which route to go.

Chris Ryan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you���re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 05:15:30 -0800 (PST)
Chris Ryan <xgbe@yahoo.com>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
Josh Berkus wrote:

>Folks,
>
>As we discussed a couple weeks ago, Marc, Andrew, Tim Perdue, Chris Ryan and I 
>are testing implementing GForge in place of GBorg for associated projects for 
>PostgreSQL.
>
>One thing which was suggested initially was that this new project hosting site 
>be at www.postgresql.net with projects being <projectname>.postgresql.net.
>
>However, some of the "porting" team felt that it would be confusing for people 
>who typed in www.postgresql.net to be presented with the GForge interface, 
>and suggested that we use the domain after what we'll be calling the new 
>Tool, namely pgFoundry, thus putting stuff at www.pgFoundry.org and 
><projectname>.pgfoundry.org.
>
>So far, only 4 people, total, have expressed opinons on the matter.  I'm 
>throwing this on Hackers so that members of projects we will be hosting can 
>indicate whether they:
>
>A) Favor www.postgresql.net
>B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org
>C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless.
>
>  
>

Isn't gforge a pgsql related project itself?
So I'd suggest:

www.postgresql.org   -> main PostgreSQL site
gforge.postgresql.org -> gforge interface site
<projectname>.postgresql.org -> gforge hosted projects


Regards,
Andreas


Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:56:40 +0100
Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>
Re: The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> >
> > IMHO, the domain name isn't the make/break of whether going to GForge will
> > succeed ... the success will be a matter of marketing it, and making sure
> > that its project are well known ... personally, focusing on the domain is
> > like focusing on the name of a car when you buy it, not on its features
> > and/or price ...
>
>
> Really? What about BMW, Volvo or Mercedes?

What about them?

My point is that as long as we market/advertise the *site*, the URL to get
there isn't going to matter to anyone ... only that they can find it ...
its a branding issue, not a 'how to get there' issue ... hell, in most
cases, ppl are going to click on the link from www.postgresql.org without
even looking at what the URL itself is ...

Sorry, car analogy was a bad one in that case :)

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:54:53 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.

David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> writes:

> Also, we're targetting the developers right? Please do not consider
> ourselves as being too stupid to differentiate between postgresql.org and
> postgresql.net...

I can never remember whether the current site is postgresql.{com,org,net} even
now. Making postgresql.net one thing and postgresql.org another thing is a
recipe for confusion.

I would say follow the same model as modules.apache.org, pear.php.net, etc.

I don't understand the "too long" complaint at all. a) Nobody's forcing us to
use a subdomain for each project, and b) nobody's actually going to type
"slony.gborg.postgres.org" or "gborg.postgres.org/slony" anyways. They'll go
to "gborg.postgres.org" and type "slony" into the search box.

In any case, complaining about "too long" when each component means something
specific only means you want to leave off one of those meanings. Either the
name of the project, the distinction from the main site, or the association
with postgres.

Ie, Using "postgres.org" vs "postgres.net" or leaves the user with no clue
which site he's on or even that there is another site. Using something like
"pgfoundry.com" leaves the user with no idea the web site is related to the
postgres.org web site.

-- 
greg


12 Mar 2004 12:28:53 -0500
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Re: The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Greg Stark wrote:

> I would say follow the same model as modules.apache.org, pear.php.net,
> etc.

note that having projects.postgresql.org is cool ... its just the projects
subpages that I'm objecting too ...

the easiest is to have http://projects.postgresql.org point to the same as
http://www.postgresql.net, and then have all the projects piggy back on
*.postgresql.net ...

I have no hassles with that ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:33:22 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Re: The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org