Message-ID: <470754FE.90406@bluegap.ch>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 11:27:26 +0200
From: Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>
User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070328)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
CC: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency
References: <200710051922.01797.peter_e@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <200710051922.01797.peter_e@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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