On 9/27/07, Ron Peterson <ron.peterson@yellowbank.com> wrote:
> 100% no. A clear consensus, yes.
What do you consider a clear consensus? There's a big difference
between 60%, 75%, and 99.9% agreement?
> Or maybe we should just give anyone with an opinion on the
> subject CVS commit privileges and hash it out there?
#!/bin/bash
while [ 1 -eq 1 ]
do
cd pgsql
cvs update
cd ..
cp -Rp pgsql pgsql-dev
# Could just be done with find + sed, but that's no fun :)
grep -r "PostgreSQL" pgsql-dev/* \
| cut -d : -f 1 | sort | uniq \
| xargs sed -i 's/PostgreSQL/Postgres/g'
cd pgsql-dev
cvs commit
cd ..
rm -rf pgsql-dev
echo "Waiting until next time..."
sleep 30
done
Bring on CVS commit privilege?
> it should continue to be used as such, rather than
> subverted in a thinly disguised naming coup.
I can't determine whether this is an excessive exaggeration or a
conspiracy theory.
> In chess, when you make the same move repeatedly without making any
> progress, it is called a draw.
Qxf7#
> This conversation is going nowhere right now. Please don't
> bring it up again in three weeks. Bring it up in three years
> maybe.
As I see it, there are less than ten or so people vocally against the
official name change and considerably more for it. Of those against
it, two have a business-related financial stake in the name change.
Truly, is it the PostgreSQL community these individuals are looking
out for, or their own businesses?
Frankly, the only substantial community claim I've seen against the
name change is from several members of the JPUG.
--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com
Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
