-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Some of you may have noticed that there was a move proposed to use "Postgres"
> alongside "PostgreSQL" as a product name in the documentation and other
> written resources. A change along that line has already been made in the
> FAQ.
> I believe both the FAQ and the documentation do explain the naming issue near
> the beginning. But the rest of the document should use one name
> consistently, or it will just look silly and confusing. Also consider that
> many of our written resources are not read linearly, so it becomes even more
> important to use consistent terminology that does not require much context to
> understand.
>
> So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be reverted.
>
+1
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/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHBnSkATb/zqfZUUQRAnzIAJoCXVkeH9xioB0xEy4jWmhN8iCE5QCgpFQN
HY0MrmdBT63sZ8uFIS75aL0=
=f8I/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
