Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>> But I do disagree with the 150-250 hours amount of work.
>
> As do I. I think it would be about 4 hours of 'work'.
The total amount of _OPTIONAL_ and downright
unnecessary work is immense:* Salespeople using the product across the world "having" to update all their
powerpoints.*Renaming Josh D's company (to "Command PromptSQL" so people don't forget they do SQL?).* Sending out
recallnotices so everyone who received swag with the old names.* Scouring the source code to remove "pgsql" and
replacingit with "pgs".* Tracking down all the instances of PostgreSQL on the web site.
But none of those need to happen so long as everyone
agrees PostgreSQL is still accepted. And arguably
none of these should ever happen.
The minimal required amount of work is much less than even
the 4 hours. It's about 30 seconds. A simple email
to the lists from core saying: "We will move to Postgres in the future. We welcome patches. For those new to
submittingpatches, here's where to submit patches to web and docs"
is, IMHO, enough. Yes, reviewing and accepting the
patches is more work, but that can happen at the leisure
of the committers over the next dozen years.
The only way I see it actually being a lot of required
work is if someone proposes banning PostgreSQL -- but
I've not ever seen any proposal that includes that.