Greg,
> Consider it a way to talk to the community,
> and see if anyone has any pros and cons that this list may not have
> thought of yet.
Sure. But that's still not taking a "vote", which is what I want to make
clear, and doesn't significantly move forward actually doing a name
change.
> You are presupposing that your list of "research/work required" is the
> same as everyone elses, especially those in the "Postgres" camp. I, for
> example, have always advocated a gradual approach - a FAQ item, a news
> release, and we're done.
And, again, I regard this whole viewpoint as myopically unrealistic. What
sense does it make to have Postgres as the "official" name if the packages
are still named "PostgreSQL", the documentation still says "PostgreSQL",
and the website is still at www.postgresql.org?
Really, you're not proposing anything other than the "official nickname"
approach, which I agree doesn't require any real work. But it's not
changing our "official name".
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco