Robert Treat wrote:
On Saturday 23 January 2010 16:19:11 Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Robert Treat wrote:
I'm not saying there aren't
downsides, but having a name the community can unify on is a definite
plus, and imho that name has to be Postgres.
Translation: "we'll only be unified if everyone agrees with me."
Wow Andrew, that's kind of a dick thing to say. This really isn't about
agreeing with me except maybe that I've watched the issue for years and I
think I have come to the most reasonable conclusion. If there is a more
reasonable conclusion, I'm happy to switch to that, but of course we'd be back
to people agreeing with me...
I'm sorry if I offended you, it seems to be my week for that. But that's
how what you said came across to me.
I don't actually have a horse in this race, I can live with either name.
But there was a discussion on it not long ago (in which I did not take
part) and a decision was made. I think bringing it up again now is
unfortunate, and a serious distraction. And clearly there are reasonable
counter-arguments to your position, as evidenced by this most recent
discussion.
I honestly do not believe that the future of the project depends on the
outcome of this issue to any significant extent.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
