Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:57:55 -0700
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Devrim =?UTF-8?B?R8OcTkTDnFo=?= <devrim@commandprompt.com>,
	"pgsql-docs@postgresql.org" <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>,
	"pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org" <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org>, Peter
	Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: [DOCS] Pattern for use of the alias "Postgres"
Message-ID: <20071025135755.20b1f8f7@scratch>
In-Reply-To: <200710252050.l9PKoYV18237@momjian.us>
References: <20071025131759.0eb35cd6@scratch>
	<200710252050.l9PKoYV18237@momjian.us>
Organization: Joshua D. Drake
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/bAJkFM0eo882xnhr5QHP9/0";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1

--Sig_/bAJkFM0eo882xnhr5QHP9/0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:50:34 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:


> > Woah, let's be very clear here. There was zero agreement to promote
> > the name postgres. There was agreement to state that Postgres was an
> > acceptable form of the word PostgreSQL.
> >=20
> > Which I do still agree with, but that is far from "promoting".=20
>=20
> Here is a thread where I propose the "promoting" idea and general
> agreement on it:
>=20
> 	http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-09/msg00257.php
>=20
> and here is where I think you are agreeing to do such promotion in the
> FAQ, at least:
>=20
> 	http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-09/msg00279.php

No. That was me stating that the current FAQ stating that Postgres was
an acceptable form of PostgreSQL was enough. Which I do still agree
with.

I have stated that *if* we were going to make wholesale documentation
changes that we should do it in the form of PostgreSQL, hereafter known
as Postgres...

I don't like it but I believe it would be a fair compromise.

>=20
> I have the email addresses and opinions of a majority of advocacy
> posters.  I can post it again if you want or we can go through this
> all again, probably with the same result.
>=20

You are welcome to bring it up again. I am not going to. I find the
issue currently closed with the FAQ entry.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--=20

      =3D=3D=3D The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. =3D=3D=3D
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
			UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/


--Sig_/bAJkFM0eo882xnhr5QHP9/0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHIQNVATb/zqfZUUQRAi0iAJ0Rx2qwJZgaSOAm3INN+J52SOXOpQCfRkmh
JANRfk/RKg62oj9QaW0UT9E=
=RpxH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/bAJkFM0eo882xnhr5QHP9/0--