On 9/26/2007 2:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
>> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
>> > than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.
>>
>> I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
>> our differences about product naming. Technical documentation is the
>> last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent. If you
>> want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.
>
> If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
> propose we do that? I suggested the documentation and FAQ. Do you have
> a better idea?
Apparently nobody agrees at all yet. Interestingly, everyone has dropped
the *absolutely necessary* addition of *Postgre* to the accepted aliases
in case we are not committing to renaming to Postgres.
It is absolutely necessary because there is *no way* the people, who
oppose the name change, even remotely believe for themselves that this
abomination will ever go away by itself. And if they do, they are just
as ignorant as they claim the proponents of the name change would be.
Only that the two camps are ignorant of different things.
So is it okay now that we add Postgre to the list of accepted aliases?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
