On Saturday 23 January 2010 16:19:11 Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Robert Treat wrote: > > I'm not saying there aren't > > downsides, but having a name the community can unify on is a definite > > plus, and imho that name has to be Postgres. > > Translation: "we'll only be unified if everyone agrees with me." >
Wow Andrew, that's kind of a dick thing to say. This really isn't about agreeing with me except maybe that I've watched the issue for years and I think I have come to the most reasonable conclusion. If there is a more reasonable conclusion, I'm happy to switch to that, but of course we'd be back to people agreeing with me... > Sorry, that is quite clearly not going to happen. > People said that about win32 and people said that about git; the former has happened, the latter hasn't, but I suspect it will. Given the problems with the name PostgreSQL aren't just going to magically disappear, eventually I believe a name change will be made (though I've no doubt people will try to dig themselves in deeper in opposition to it in the mean time). > Can we please get on with actually making a better product? Raising this > issue again is simply an unnecessary distraction. > A strong and growing community is arguably the most important feature of any software project; to that extent this *is* the work of making a better product. -- Robert Treat Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net Consulting: http://www.omniti.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
