Thread: Pattern for use of the alias "Postgres"
[ BCC to docs because this might affect documentation too.] You probably remember the discussion about promoting the use of the alias "Postgres" in addition to the official name "PostgreSQL". I have changed the FAQ so that in paragraphs with multiple references to "PostgreSQL" we also use the alias "Postgres". I have talked about a similar change to our documentation and perhaps the web site, but I am _not_ ready to discuss those. What I want to ask about is an idea a few people have mentioned. They don't like that we change usage in the same paragraph. The suggestion is to mention that "Postgres" is an alias to "PostgreSQL" at the top of the document and just use "Postgres" in the remainder of the document. This seems like a lot more use of the alias than I though we wanted as a group, but because several of the people suggesting this also didn't want the alias at all, I figure I should ask and we can discuss it. So, for the FAQ, which currently uses the second-entry-per-paragraph logic, should it be changed to the logic suggested above where every mention but the first is "Postgres"? (This will of course affect the documentation changes when we are ready to discuss those.) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > So, for the FAQ, which currently uses the second-entry-per-paragraph > logic, should it be changed to the logic suggested above where every > mention but the first is "Postgres"? (This will of course affect the > documentation changes when we are ready to discuss those.) Just undo the whole thing. The project name is what it is. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 21:44 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > So, for the FAQ, which currently uses the second-entry-per-paragraph > > logic, should it be changed to the logic suggested above where every > > mention but the first is "Postgres"? (This will of course affect > the > > documentation changes when we are ready to discuss those.) > > Just undo the whole thing. The project name is what it is. +1. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Attachment
Devrim G�ND�Z wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 21:44 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > So, for the FAQ, which currently uses the second-entry-per-paragraph > > > logic, should it be changed to the logic suggested above where every > > > mention but the first is "Postgres"? (This will of course affect > > the > > > documentation changes when we are ready to discuss those.) > > > > Just undo the whole thing. The project name is what it is. > > +1. Let's not get sidetracked here. There was already agreement in advocacy to promote the use of the alias, and this thread is to discuss that, not to revisit whether we should use an alias or not. If you want to bring up that issue, start a thread and try to get agreement on it. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:10:31 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > > Just undo the whole thing. The project name is what it is.
> >
> > +1.
>
> Let's not get sidetracked here. There was already agreement in
> advocacy to promote the use of the alias, and this thread is to
> discuss that, not to revisit whether we should use an alias or not.
> If you want to bring up that issue, start a thread and try to get
> agreement on it.
>
Woah, let's be very clear here. There was zero agreement to promote the
name postgres. There was agreement to state that Postgres was an
acceptable form of the word PostgreSQL.
Which I do still agree with, but that is far from "promoting".
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/
Attachment
Hi, On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 16:10 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > There was already agreement in advocacy to promote the use of the > alias, Really? -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Attachment
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:10:31 -0400 (EDT)
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
>
> > > > Just undo the whole thing. The project name is what it is.
> > >
> > > +1.
> >
> > Let's not get sidetracked here. There was already agreement in
> > advocacy to promote the use of the alias, and this thread is to
> > discuss that, not to revisit whether we should use an alias or not.
> > If you want to bring up that issue, start a thread and try to get
> > agreement on it.
> >
>
> Woah, let's be very clear here. There was zero agreement to promote the
> name postgres. There was agreement to state that Postgres was an
> acceptable form of the word PostgreSQL.
>
> Which I do still agree with, but that is far from "promoting".
Here is a thread where I propose the "promoting" idea and general
agreement on it:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-09/msg00257.php
and here is where I think you are agreeing to do such promotion in the
FAQ, at least:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-09/msg00279.php
I have the email addresses and opinions of a majority of advocacy
posters. I can post it again if you want or we can go through this all
again, probably with the same result.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Hi Bruce, On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 16:50 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I have the email addresses and opinions of a majority of advocacy > posters. I can post it again if you want or we can go through this > all again, probably with the same result. So you say -advocacy list members are the ones who can change project's name? Interesting. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Attachment
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:50:34 -0400 (EDT) Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > Woah, let's be very clear here. There was zero agreement to promote > > the name postgres. There was agreement to state that Postgres was an > > acceptable form of the word PostgreSQL. > > > > Which I do still agree with, but that is far from "promoting". > > Here is a thread where I propose the "promoting" idea and general > agreement on it: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-09/msg00257.php > > and here is where I think you are agreeing to do such promotion in the > FAQ, at least: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-09/msg00279.php No. That was me stating that the current FAQ stating that Postgres was an acceptable form of PostgreSQL was enough. Which I do still agree with. I have stated that *if* we were going to make wholesale documentation changes that we should do it in the form of PostgreSQL, hereafter known as Postgres... I don't like it but I believe it would be a fair compromise. > > I have the email addresses and opinions of a majority of advocacy > posters. I can post it again if you want or we can go through this > all again, probably with the same result. > You are welcome to bring it up again. I am not going to. I find the issue currently closed with the FAQ entry. 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/
Attachment
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Woah, let's be very clear here. There was zero agreement to promote > > > the name postgres. There was agreement to state that Postgres was an > > > acceptable form of the word PostgreSQL. > > > > > > Which I do still agree with, but that is far from "promoting". > > > > Here is a thread where I propose the "promoting" idea and general > > agreement on it: > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-09/msg00257.php > > > > and here is where I think you are agreeing to do such promotion in the > > FAQ, at least: > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-09/msg00279.php > > No. That was me stating that the current FAQ stating that Postgres was > an acceptable form of PostgreSQL was enough. Which I do still agree > with. OK, I misunderstood then. I was asking where to promote it and you were saying just the FAQ which I thought meant promote usage in the FAQ. Sorry. > I have stated that *if* we were going to make wholesale documentation > changes that we should do it in the form of PostgreSQL, hereafter known > as Postgres... > > I don't like it but I believe it would be a fair compromise. Yea, I think so. If we make that change we could go until 8.4 beta and then see how we are doing with making an easily-prounced alias name. We might need to make no further changes, or we might want to change it back for some reason. I will give another 1-2 days for feedback on the "pattern" usage issue. So far I think everyone so far has said they like just a first mention of PostgreSQL in the document and then Postgres in the rest of the document _if_ we are going to do that. Then I will start a new thread to ask about actually doing that change. I thought the second-in-paragraph style was minimal because it is like, e.g. "Bill Cohen was caught stealing. Cohen was seen under the bushes on Cobbs Lane.". Or with Coke, "Coca-cola is expense. Coke is also bad for you". But it seems people don't like that usage in practice. (FYI, I see some "Postgres" mentions have gotten in the 8.3 release notes already from Tom. I will have to adjust those once we make a final decision, but you can see how it looks now.) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Let's not get sidetracked here. There was already agreement in > advocacy to promote the use of the alias, and this thread is to > discuss that, not to revisit whether we should use an alias or not. Advocacy opinions have no bearing on proper documentation writing. Nor do I believe that there was an actual agreement. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Let's not get sidetracked here. ?There was already agreement in > > advocacy to promote the use of the alias, and this thread is to > > discuss that, not to revisit whether we should use an alias or not. > > Advocacy opinions have no bearing on proper documentation writing. Nor > do I believe that there was an actual agreement. I disagree. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
[ BCC to docs.] FYI, since no one liked my second-in-paragraph usage of "Postgres" in the FAQ and developer's FAQ, I have removed it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- bruce wrote: > [ BCC to docs because this might affect documentation too.] > > You probably remember the discussion about promoting the use of the > alias "Postgres" in addition to the official name "PostgreSQL". I have > changed the FAQ so that in paragraphs with multiple references to > "PostgreSQL" we also use the alias "Postgres". > > I have talked about a similar change to our documentation and perhaps > the web site, but I am _not_ ready to discuss those. > > What I want to ask about is an idea a few people have mentioned. They > don't like that we change usage in the same paragraph. The suggestion > is to mention that "Postgres" is an alias to "PostgreSQL" at the top of > the document and just use "Postgres" in the remainder of the document. > > This seems like a lot more use of the alias than I though we wanted as a > group, but because several of the people suggesting this also didn't > want the alias at all, I figure I should ask and we can discuss it. > > So, for the FAQ, which currently uses the second-entry-per-paragraph > logic, should it be changed to the logic suggested above where every > mention but the first is "Postgres"? (This will of course affect the > documentation changes when we are ready to discuss those.) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +