On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:50:34 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Woah, let's be very clear here. There was zero agreement to promote
> > the name postgres. There was agreement to state that Postgres was an
> > acceptable form of the word PostgreSQL.
> >
> > Which I do still agree with, but that is far from "promoting".
>
> Here is a thread where I propose the "promoting" idea and general
> agreement on it:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-09/msg00257.php
>
> and here is where I think you are agreeing to do such promotion in the
> FAQ, at least:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-09/msg00279.php
No. That was me stating that the current FAQ stating that Postgres was
an acceptable form of PostgreSQL was enough. Which I do still agree
with.
I have stated that *if* we were going to make wholesale documentation
changes that we should do it in the form of PostgreSQL, hereafter known
as Postgres...
I don't like it but I believe it would be a fair compromise.
>
> I have the email addresses and opinions of a majority of advocacy
> posters. I can post it again if you want or we can go through this
> all again, probably with the same result.
>
You are welcome to bring it up again. I am not going to. I find the
issue currently closed with the FAQ entry.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
