Re: Change the name (was: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL))

On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 01:59:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Decibel! wrote:
> -- Start of PGP signed section.
> > On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 01:30:54PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > I have downloaded the Advocacy email archive for August and September
> > > > and looked at all emails with the subject "naming".  I read each email
> > > > and totalled the opinions of all the posters.  Of course, this is not
> > > > scientific but it does represent everyone on advocacy who felt the need
> > > > to comment on the thread.
> > > >
> > > > The totals are 15 for no change and 30 for a change to "Postgres".  The
> > > > number who favored "PostgresQL" were minimal.  If you have additions or
> > > > corrections, please email me privately and I will repost the list.
> > >
> > > Oops, I had a few duplicates in that list.  Here is the right one.
> > > (Seems I need to use a database with unique constraints.)
> > >
> > > This shows 70% in favor of a change to "Postgres", so far.
> > >
> > > Of course, this is not a vote on _how_ to implement the change.
> >
> > I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask... can we now at least agree
> > to change the name to Postgres, stop debating that point, and start
> > thinking about *how* to change the name?
>
> Yea, I think that is a limb.  People have thrown all sort of ideas on
> why/why not to make the change, so I think we need to give more time for
> that.

Ok, well, at the least then we really need to focus discussion on
"Should we change the name" and quit worrying about how we'll actually
do it.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)