From: | Markus Schiltknecht <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency |
Date: | 2007-10-06 09:27:26 |
Message-ID: | 470754FE.90406@bluegap.ch |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Hi,
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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
It's a compromise, a single step of a slow migration (which I still see
as the only reasonable option).
While I certainly agree that such documents should strive for consistent
naming in general, I think it's absolutely acceptable for an open source
project to break with that rule during such a migration. As pointed out
i.e. by Bruce, confusion between the two names isn't that big.
Regards
Markus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-10-06 10:50:48 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-10-05 19:25:39 | Re: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency |