Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I'm breaking my promise not to post in this thread, because I'm being
> counted wrong.
>
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 01:20:38PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > PostgreSQL (15 total)
> > ----------
> > Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>
>
> I think you have completely misunderstood my point, which is not,
> "Don't change the name," but rather, "If we're going to change the
> name, we need a _plan_." I don't oppose changing the name as such. I
> oppose changing the name _now_, or _gradually_, or any of the other
> go-small answers that have been proposed. If we want to change the
> name, then we need to design the name change in the same careful way
> that we would expect new features to be designed.
>
> (This lack of nuance is why I think the poll on the EnterpriseDB web
> site is a bad one: it isn't a question of a specific proposal of how
> or when to change the name, but merely whether we ought to. If we're
> going to do it, can we please have a poll on a serious and complete
> proposal?)

As I understand it, the idea was to see if enough people want to
_explore_ a change, and then we can start discussing details. I will
remove you from the vote list until I hear otherwise.

--
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. +