Re: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  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