Re: Using Postgres as an alias

On 9/29/2007 3:21 PM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>> ------- Original Message -------
>> From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
>> To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
>> Sent: 29/09/07, 20:03:19
>> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Using Postgres as an alias
>>
>> So is it okay now that we add Postgre to the list of accepted aliases?
>
> Call me ignorant if you like, but I say no.

Is that a firm "no" or is that this more and more popular "I don't care"
"no"?

I just want to know where the majority stands on Postgre. Because if the
majority says we should not accept it, then I can add some code to the
IRC bot to jump down the throat of ... er ... let me rephrase that ...
politely point out that Postgre is NOT an accepted name of the project,
whenever someone new to the channel is asking a Postgre related
question. And it would also ask for everyone to correct it wherever
there is a chance (I do admit that during the first meeting with a new
customer isn't really a good chance).

But if instead, the majority thinks we should gallantly overlook the use
of Postgre and act as if the person had accidentally made a typing error
meaning Postgres indeed, we defacto do accept Postgre and should
document it that way.

Can't have it both ways.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #