On Tue, September 19, 2006 01:11, Josh Berkus wrote:
> As a pgFoundry admin, I have to say that I'm really let down by the
> Slony-I
> team on this one.  If there are issues with pgFoundry (and there are) then
>  we'd like your help in resolving them (since most of them relate to
> manpower).   Having Slony-I run off and start its own site with
> completely separate infrastructure doesn't help any of the other users of
> pgFoundry, and just compounds the "does PostgreSQL have replication or
> not" problem.
>
> If your conclusion is that pgFoundry is borked and we need to replace it
> with something else *in general*, then let's replace it.

The problem with pgFoundry atm is this: (correct me if I'm wrong, this all
what I gathered from IRC chats)
- current jail runs on a server that is not controlled by the community?
- current server is overloaded/ not reliable
- nobody has access to the database it is running on.
- it is running outdated and abandonned software. (Although that can be
  fixed by installing the non-open version?)
- the replacement server has hardware problems that haven't been fixed for
  a while.
- nobody has emergency access to the upstream provider?

What I gathered from the discussions on the needs of Slony-I is this:
- Remote backup (dataloss is not acceptable)
- 2 or more people from the community that have the ability to speak to the
  upstream provider in case of problems.
- stability (2 weeks downtime is not acceptable)
- Short term migration.
- access to a database
- SCM, website, mailinglist,bugtracker etc.
- Be there for years to come.

If these needs can all be met in the very near future on pgFoundry, then
I don't think we will need to do something on our own.

We might want to change SCM to a distributed SCM in the future. That can
be a problem with GForge, but maybe that can be fixed when/if the time
comes..

- Niels