Re: Using Postgres as an alias

[Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>]

On 9/29/2007 3:21 PM, Dave Page wrote:
> > ------- Original Message -------
> > From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
> > To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
> > Sent: 29/09/07, 20:03:19
> > Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Using Postgres as an alias
> >
> > So is it okay now that we add Postgre to the list of accepted aliases?
>
> Call me ignorant if you like, but I say no.

Is that a firm "no" or is that this more and more popular "I don't care" 
"no"?

I just want to know where the majority stands on Postgre. Because if the 
majority says we should not accept it, then I can add some code to the 
IRC bot to jump down the throat of ... er ... let me rephrase that ... 
politely point out that Postgre is NOT an accepted name of the project, 
whenever someone new to the channel is asking a Postgre related 
question. And it would also ask for everyone to correct it wherever 
there is a chance (I do admit that during the first meeting with a new 
customer isn't really a good chance).

But if instead, the majority thinks we should gallantly overlook the use 
of Postgre and act as if the person had accidentally made a typing error 
meaning Postgres indeed, we defacto do accept Postgre and should 
document it that way.

Can't have it both ways.


Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #