From: Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:27:26 +0200
Message-ID: <470754FE.90406@bluegap.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200710051922.01797.peter_e@gmx.net>
References: <200710051922.01797.peter_e@gmx.net>
Hi,
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I believe both the FAQ and the documentation do explain the naming issue near
> the beginning. But the rest of the document should use one name
> consistently, or it will just look silly and confusing. Also consider that
> many of our written resources are not read linearly, so it becomes even more
> important to use consistent terminology that does not require much context to
> understand.
>
> So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be reverted.
-1
It's a compromise, a single step of a slow migration (which I still see
as the only reasonable option).
While I certainly agree that such documents should strive for consistent
naming in general, I think it's absolutely acceptable for an open source
project to break with that rule during such a migration. As pointed out
i.e. by Bruce, confusion between the two names isn't that big.
Regards
Markus
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: markus@bluegap.ch, peter_e@gmx.net
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency
In-Reply-To: <470754FE.90406@bluegap.ch>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox