| From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Derek Rodner" <derek(dot)rodner(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Using Postgres as an alias |
| Date: | 2007-09-26 22:39:28 |
| Message-ID: | 162867790709261539j2fa80da4wac68fd1db06d889c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
> >
> > Devrim's argument about renaming all packages is really strong for me.
>
> I think you missed the point of promoting the preferred short name entirely - it doesn't require changing of any packages at all.
>
> Think of it like an acronym in a paper. You spell it out the first time you use it, then use the short form thereafter. Similarly we can use the full name in packages, titles, introductions etc. and the short form in body text where it improves flow when reading.
>
I haven't problem with using it in any articles, books, etc. But in
technical documentation I prefer using only official full name. That's
all. I was happy with FAQ compromise, and I hoped so this unsensed
debate was finished. But this is new opening closed question.
Pavel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Mayer | 2007-09-26 22:41:53 | Re: Using Postgres as an alias |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-09-26 22:34:44 | Re: Using Postgres as an alias |