From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2000-04-11 04:59:07 |
Message-ID: | 38F2B11B.5EE52DF@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
> Why is someone (presumably from southern California) always changing all
> mentions of "PostgreSQL" in the documentation to "Postgres"? Wouldn't it
> be more productive the other way around?
:)
The document conventions are mentioned in the introductory section on
"Notation". I'm trying for a consistant presentation within the
documents, and had settled on "Postgres" as a readable, pronounceable
form for our project. I try to keep "PostgreSQL" for introductory
sections and book and chapter headings. I suppose that those
conventions could be up for discussion (as is everything else wrt
Postgres^HSQL) but I'm not sure that changing this particular
convention buys us anything other than heavier docs. To my mind, this
s/w is the only survivor of the Postgres family, and there is no need
to distinguish it from other, older, relatives.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2000-04-11 04:59:28 | Re: Updated docs needed for 7.0 |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-04-11 03:56:06 | Updated docs needed for 7.0 |