Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 30 August 2007 21:16, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> > > On 8/31/07, Ron Peterson <ron.peterson@yellowbank.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm going to repost the question I posed in my last email as the start
> > > > of what I'm hoping might be a thread to end this discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Are you willing to accept the resolution of the naming question as a
> > > > pronouncement from core, who can decide the matter amongst themselves
> > > > however they see fit?
> > > >
> > > > +1 for me.
> > >
> > > Personally I feel that it goes without saying. They [the core] do most
> > > of the work, and they do excellent work, so I feel confident that
> > > whatever they choose will be for the best. They should be the ones to
> > > decide such important matters -- it is their blood and sweat in the
> > > source code. :)
> > >
> > > I don't want to say that community has no voice in it -- it has, and it
> > > is important, just as the community is important for our favourite RDBMS,
> > > but I would hate to usurp power over Core. :)
> >
> > Uh, really the community puts in as much work or more than the core
> > people. The idea that core is doing most of the work is something I
> > hope is never true. Core are just figureheads when leadership is needed
> > in non-technical cases. Of course, this naming thing might be such a
> > case (break ties).
>
> Well, we can't change the name unless core is on board, since it will require
> changes in the source code. Of course we'll also need to aquire domain names
> too, so even a decision by core that we want to change the name would require
> some waiting period to see if it could really pan out.
Only "Postgres" requires domain names, "PostgresQL" does not. Of course
core could make any changes, but cvs committers could make the change
too.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
