[ I'm pushing Robert's comment over into the pghackers thread... ]
Robert Treat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't going to force the issue just for my own sake... but ISTM Tom, Peter,
myself and possibly others were all confused somewhat by the switch.
Anyway... the only real point that I have about the whole thing is that
people used to complain that gborg was too nebulous a name (ie. whats a
gborg?) and people didnt know to look at it, or were confused as to what its
purpose was. the idea of projects.postgresql.(org|net) seem like a real easy
way to make it crystal clear as to what exactly was going on at that site.
By making it pgfoundry.org, i guess it is clear as to its purpose as far as
project hosting, but it loses some of its ties to postgresql, to the point
where I think folks will wonder if this is an independent site or if it has
the backing of the greater postgresql community. I tend to think that would
be a step back...
I think that last is really the crux of the issue. Josh observed that
whatever the site name is, it will be the task of the advocacy group to
market it with the correct public perception. But choosing the right
name will surely make it easier to control the perception. What we're
really arguing about here, IMHO, is the perceived distance between the
domain names for the core project and the other projects. If they're
too different then it will be very hard to get people to see the
projects as related to PostgreSQL, no matter what marketing efforts we
try. OTOH if they're too similar that may confuse things in other ways.
My feeling is that we want people to consider these projects as closely
tied to the Postgres community and so postgresql.something is just right.
I can see there are different opinions out there though...
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
