Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> FAQ isn't strict technical documentation, and there aliases arn't too
> >> bad. Why do you thing so word Postgres needs any promoting?
> > Isn't it obvious from the number of people calling it Postgre that an
> > acceptable short form should be promoted?
> What people? The three or four that I run into once a month? So what...
> > Earlier in this round of discussion it seemed that most people didn't
> > like seeing postgre, but we were split on an official name change to
> > Postgres. Doesn't it therefore make sense to leave the official name,
> > and just promote the acceptable short name?
> IMO, no. It makes sense to leave the official name and accept the short
This entire thread reminds me of the concerns I had about advocacy list
focus a few months ago.
I think I will just ignore most posts and return in a few weeks to get a
poll on adding alias usage to the documentation, get a majority (or not),
and move on.
While making the alias additions is a good use of my time, arguing with
some people is not a good use of my time. I will just take their
negative votes along with the positive votes and move on.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Jonah H. Harris||Date: 2007-09-28 12:51:04|
|Subject: Re: Using Postgres as an alias|
|Previous:||From: Christian Voelker||Date: 2007-09-28 09:21:32|
|Subject: Re: Dropping postgres as a whole.|