Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I think you have completely misunderstood my point, which is not,
> "Don't change the name," but rather, "If we're going to change the
> name, we need a _plan_." I don't oppose changing the name as such. I
> oppose changing the name _now_, or _gradually_, or any of the other
Regardless of the intent and of the best efforts of core and
the entire community the name is changing _now_ and _gradually_.
Now - because even if it be decided in a fancy plan that the
name will change only after some date; people will begin adopt
adopting the new usage immediately after it's made official.
Gradually - because core doesn't control the world. There
are thousands of times more powerpoints in various sales
organizations in thousands companies around the world that
will be refreshed at the leisure of the sales people. Whether
core changes all of docs+web+comments-in-source in a day or
a month or a year or a decade; the real life usage of the
terms will take time to change.
Even if a plan says "burn all PostgreSQL swag", or "don't
say 'Postgres' without 'QL' until 9.2 is released" - in
reality the effect will start when a decision is made,
and be gradual.
> go-small answers that have been proposed.
I don't think "now" or "gradually" are "go-small". In contrast
I think they recognize that the change is something bigger
than what the postgresql project has direct control over.
