On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Even if they weren't useful for anything else, I think there's value in the
> > developers having to consider what is optional and what is not. This need
> > for constant review probably reduces the chance of bloat, over time even
> > in th
Even if they weren't useful for anything else, I think there's value in the
developers having to consider what is optional and what is not. This need
for constant review probably reduces the chance of bloat, over time even
in the full tarball.
How about dropping the partial tarballs and using the s
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/README.dist-split
> >
> > to reduce the confusion, that would be great. I've just symlink'd it into
> > the source directories as the .message, so that its displays whe
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/README.dist-split
>
> to reduce the confusion, that would be great. I've just symlink'd it into
> the source directories as the .message, so that its displays when you
> enter the directory ...
Does anyone actually read
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Marko Karppinen wrote:
> I agree that the partial tarballs can confuse an ftp user, though. I
> think a good solution to this would be to put them one level deeper,
> into a subfolder. The full tarball would then be the only thing a casual
> user would encounter, but the sou
On 11 Nov 2003, at 20:44, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Do we have any data on how many people download the partial tarballs
(-base, -opt, etc.)? I have a feeling that more people are confused by
them than use them.
Even if they weren't useful for anything else, I think there's value in
the
developers
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 14:29, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier writes:
>
> > > Do we have any data on how many people download the partial tarballs
> > > (-base, -opt, etc.)? I have a feeling that more people are confused by
> > > them than use them.
> >
> > on ftp.postgresql.org itself,
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier writes:
>
> > > Do we have any data on how many people download the partial tarballs
> > > (-base, -opt, etc.)? I have a feeling that more people are confused by
> > > them than use them.
> >
> > on ftp.postgresql.org itself, since
Marc G. Fournier writes:
> > Do we have any data on how many people download the partial tarballs
> > (-base, -opt, etc.)? I have a feeling that more people are confused by
> > them than use them.
>
> on ftp.postgresql.org itself, since June 4th:
Interesting. Note that in most cases people down
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Do we have any data on how many people download the partial tarballs
> (-base, -opt, etc.)? I have a feeling that more people are confused by
> them than use them.
on ftp.postgresql.org itself, since June 4th:
2812 /var/spool/ftp/pub/source/v7.3.
Do we have any data on how many people download the partial tarballs
(-base, -opt, etc.)? I have a feeling that more people are confused by
them than use them.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searc
11 matches
Mail list logo
