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@crankycanuck.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?)
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Users never remark, "Wow, this software may be buggy and hard
to use, but at least there is a lot of code underneath."
--Damien Katz