Re: Using Postgres as an alias - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy
From | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Using Postgres as an alias |
Date | |
Msg-id | 200709262105.l8QL5Ma04497@momjian.us Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Using Postgres as an alias ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Using Postgres as an alias
|
List | pgsql-advocacy |
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Derek Rodner wrote: > >>> In presentations, articles, blogs, etc. Any publicly visible spot. > >> This is assuming the name of the project has changed. It hasn't. The > >> name of this project is PostgreSQL. > > > > But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be > > widely used. > > I am unsure of the importance of this point. The name of the project is > PostgreSQL, not Postgres. If the alias doesn't get used, who cares. Well, if no one uses the alias then there is more motivation to make an official name change, which I thought you didn't want. > >> This whole thread stinks of... I couldn't get my way and change the name > >> outright so instead I will subvert my will through alternative means... > > > > Well, actually, I see it the opposite where you brow-beat folks until > > you think they will quit. (I am not a quitter, which I think you know.) > > And I certainly do think the name change will finally be made, so I > > don't feel like I have to subvert anything. > > > > Well at least you are honest :) but consider that (I am not a quitter, > which I think you know.) > > So you and I are going to be at this *a long* time. No, you will have to give up eventually. ;-) I can see which way the wind is blowing, and I think you can too. ;-) > > I thought it would not be a controversial change because I already > > stated I wanted to make the alias more visible and no one objected. Now > > I have a few objections and a lot of people who think it is a good idea. > > > > If you review the thread it appears that the equation is similar to that > of the name change... e.g; no clear majority. Yes perhaps 3:1 or 4:1 for the alias, so yea, pretty similar. > > Frankly, if the alias takes hold we might not need to make the full name > > change -- supressing this idea now might actually hasten the name > > change. > > >> The community "just" accepted the FAQ change, and now you want to start > >> this? > >> > >> Let it lay. > > > > Again, why shut down the discussion? > > Because.. silence is not approval the longer this thread goes on, the > more likely it will only be the very few participating. Likely the few > on core that participate and the few long time contributors such as myself. > > Which means, it will never end, and continue to polarize external > community and people will just give up. That isn't good. Seems like people are still contributing to the discussion. I have rarely seen things die if there are substantive ideas, which I think this is one. > Brow beating is not good. It is negative and counter productive. You > won't win anything, but you certainly may cause a lot of antagonism (as > may I with my alternate view). > > Note that this may be worth while in the future, but all things come in > time and I don't think this is the right time. I thought you thought the FAQ alias usage was OK? I also don't see waiting as fruitful. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
pgsql-advocacy by date: