Re: 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL

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