On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:47:57 +0200
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > is quite common to see something like this:
> >
> > PostgreSQL hereafter referred to as Postgres
>
> This is usually because the first thing is very long and the second
> is an obvious abbreviation. But that does not apply in this case.
>
> Changing all subsequent mentions to Postgres would effectively change
> the visible project name to Postgres or at least give undue promotion
> of Postgres over PostgreSQL, both of which was rejected, and while
> keeping everything around it as PostgreSQL, thus creating even more
> confusion.
>
> Any sort of proposal that relies on all users of the affected
> document to start by reading and fully grasping the very first
> sentence will not work.
>
Well as I said, it was a compromise. Everyone knows what my actual
opinion is. I guess we are back where we started.
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/
