Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

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. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  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)