From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <200710252125.l9PLPL700752@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: [DOCS] Pattern for use of the alias
 "Postgres"
In-Reply-To: <20071025135755.20b1f8f7@scratch>
To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:25:21 -0400 (EDT)
CC: =?UTF-8?Q?Devrim_G=C3=9CND=C3=9CZ?= <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Joshua D. Drake 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.
> > > 
> > > Which I do still agree with, but that is far from "promoting". 
> > 
> > Here is a thread where I propose the "promoting" idea and general
> > agreement on it:
> > 
> > 	http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2007-09/msg00257.php
> > 
> > and here is where I think you are agreeing to do such promotion in the
> > FAQ, at least:
> > 
> > 	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.

OK, I misunderstood then.  I was asking where to promote it and you were
saying just the FAQ which I thought meant promote usage in the FAQ.
Sorry.

> 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.

Yea, I think so.  If we make that change we could go until 8.4 beta and
then see how we are doing with making an easily-prounced alias name.  We
might need to make no further changes, or we might want to change it
back for some reason.

I will give another 1-2 days for feedback on the "pattern" usage issue.
So far I think everyone so far has said they like just a first mention
of PostgreSQL in the document and then Postgres in the rest of the
document _if_ we are going to do that.

Then I will start a new thread to ask about actually doing that change.

I thought the second-in-paragraph style was minimal because it is like,
e.g. "Bill Cohen was caught stealing.  Cohen was seen under the bushes
on Cobbs Lane.".  Or with Coke, "Coca-cola is expense.  Coke is also bad
for you".  But it seems people don't like that usage in practice.

(FYI, I see some "Postgres" mentions have gotten in the 8.3 release
notes already from Tom.  I will have to adjust those once we make a
final decision, but you can see how it looks now.)

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +