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
