From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |
Date: | 2007-08-30 19:52:58 |
Message-ID: | 200708301952.l7UJqw729476@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
In summary, looking at possible conclusions to this discussion, I think
we have:
1) No change
2) Emphasize "Postgres" more as an alternative
3) Change the name to "PostgresQL"
4) Change the name to "Postgres QL"
5) Change the name to "Postgres"
I have ordered the items from least to most invasive. Given the
discussion, I think no option is going to get unanimous approval, so no
matter what we choose some people are going to be disappointed.
I think we have already done #2 in FAQ item #1, so one approach would be
to choose #3 and see how we like it. The #3 change is the most minimal
which still helps pronunciation. Over time you could migrate to #4 and
#5 if desired. The good news is that all the alternatives are clearly
recognizable as the same as "PostgreSQL".
(I see little support for doing a change post-8.3, e.g. 9.0.)
(This email is an attempt to refocus discussion on possible
alternatives.)
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-08-30 19:56:31 | Re: PostgreSQL.Org (was: PostgreSQL Conference Fal l 2007) |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-08-30 19:44:00 | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |