Re: Change the name

On Tuesday 04 September 2007 16:47, Josh Berkus wrote:

I think you're inflating this a bit.

> Issues not addressed above:
> path names

path names are the purview of the packagers. We don't have a consistent path
setup now, and the closest thing to one is pgsql, which need not change.

> file names

I think general agreement is that the filenames need not change. Personally
the only file I can think of that matters is the postgresql.conf, which I do
think we should change, but probably would not matter if we didnt. We already
have lived with our primary binary being callled the postmaster for many
years (which thankfully is now just postgres).

> package names

this one is tricker, but i dont think it is all that hard. I'd suspect that in
8.4, packagers would rename thier packages to postgres, with dependencies
pointing to postgresql packages. Yeah, it's probably trickier than this, but
it really depends on the packaging system. (Perhaps a packager wants to wiegh
in on this point?)

> server strings (which all have to be translated into 11 languages)

I feel confident that I can translate PostgreSQL to Postgres in the majority
of languages that are involved.

> re-designing marketing materials

Generally things probably wont have to be redesigned, just updated. Those that
want to redesign are welcome to do it, but if you but the scope of the name
change toward an 8.4 time frame, you realize that most marketing material
will have to be changed by then anyway.

> links from external sites

We control all of the postgresql domains, and I see no reason we would
relinquish them, so we only need a bit of redirection to preserve links.

> contacting packagers, commercial distributors and downstream projects so
> they all know about the name change

again, if you push this to a 8.4 timeframe, this unlikely to be a problem.
Certainly we have ways to contact the majority of packagers very quickly to
let them know what is happening.

> graphics redesign
>

I have a little bit of concern for this one, because we mave have some
graphics that say postgresql in fonts / sources we can't easily update. So
this one might be an issue (let people not forget a number of the powered by
postgresql buttons would need updating).

So of your list, I see very few items that are actually significant work. I
think the next step for anyone who seriously wants to push this forward needs
to do is see about how available the various domain names we need to aquire
are, and also to contact a good number of packagers to get thier input on how
much effort this will involve for them. Those two things could be show
stoppers, but nothing on your list looks like one to me.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL