Robert Treat wrote:
> On Saturday 23 January 2010 16:19:11 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Robert Treat wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not saying there aren't
>>> downsides, but having a name the community can unify on is a definite
>>> plus, and imho that name has to be Postgres.
>>>
>> Translation: "we'll only be unified if everyone agrees with me."
>>
>>
>
> Wow Andrew, that's kind of a dick thing to say. This really isn't about
> agreeing with me except maybe that I've watched the issue for years and I
> think I have come to the most reasonable conclusion. If there is a more
> reasonable conclusion, I'm happy to switch to that, but of course we'd be back
> to people agreeing with me...
>
>
I'm sorry if I offended you, it seems to be my week for that. But that's
how what you said came across to me.
I don't actually have a horse in this race, I can live with either name.
But there was a discussion on it not long ago (in which I did not take
part) and a decision was made. I think bringing it up again now is
unfortunate, and a serious distraction. And clearly there are reasonable
counter-arguments to your position, as evidenced by this most recent
discussion.
I honestly do not believe that the future of the project depends on the
outcome of this issue to any significant extent.
cheers
andrew
