On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 01:30:54PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have downloaded the Advocacy email archive for August and September
> > and looked at all emails with the subject "naming". I read each email
> > and totalled the opinions of all the posters. Of course, this is not
> > scientific but it does represent everyone on advocacy who felt the need
> > to comment on the thread.
> >
> > The totals are 15 for no change and 30 for a change to "Postgres". The
> > number who favored "PostgresQL" were minimal. If you have additions or
> > corrections, please email me privately and I will repost the list.
>
> Oops, I had a few duplicates in that list. Here is the right one.
> (Seems I need to use a database with unique constraints.)
>
> This shows 70% in favor of a change to "Postgres", so far.
>
> Of course, this is not a vote on _how_ to implement the change.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask... can we now at least agree
to change the name to Postgres, stop debating that point, and start
thinking about *how* to change the name?
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
