Hi,
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I believe both the FAQ and the documentation do explain the naming issue near
the beginning. But the rest of the document should use one name
consistently, or it will just look silly and confusing. Also consider that
many of our written resources are not read linearly, so it becomes even more
important to use consistent terminology that does not require much context to
understand.
So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be reverted.
-1
It's a compromise, a single step of a slow migration (which I still see
as the only reasonable option).
While I certainly agree that such documents should strive for consistent
naming in general, I think it's absolutely acceptable for an open source
project to break with that rule during such a migration. As pointed out
i.e. by Bruce, confusion between the two names isn't that big.
Regards
Markus
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
