Re: Change the name
От | Robert Treat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Change the name |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200709041820.45701.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Change the name (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 16:47, Josh Berkus wrote: I think you're inflating this a bit. > Issues not addressed above: > path names path names are the purview of the packagers. We don't have a consistent path setup now, and the closest thing to one is pgsql, which need not change. > file names I think general agreement is that the filenames need not change. Personally the only file I can think of that matters is the postgresql.conf, which I do think we should change, but probably would not matter if we didnt. We already have lived with our primary binary being callled the postmaster for many years (which thankfully is now just postgres). > package names this one is tricker, but i dont think it is all that hard. I'd suspect that in 8.4, packagers would rename thier packages to postgres, with dependencies pointing to postgresql packages. Yeah, it's probably trickier than this, but it really depends on the packaging system. (Perhaps a packager wants to wiegh in on this point?) > server strings (which all have to be translated into 11 languages) I feel confident that I can translate PostgreSQL to Postgres in the majority of languages that are involved. > re-designing marketing materials Generally things probably wont have to be redesigned, just updated. Those that want to redesign are welcome to do it, but if you but the scope of the name change toward an 8.4 time frame, you realize that most marketing material will have to be changed by then anyway. > links from external sites We control all of the postgresql domains, and I see no reason we would relinquish them, so we only need a bit of redirection to preserve links. > contacting packagers, commercial distributors and downstream projects so > they all know about the name change again, if you push this to a 8.4 timeframe, this unlikely to be a problem. Certainly we have ways to contact the majority of packagers very quickly to let them know what is happening. > graphics redesign > I have a little bit of concern for this one, because we mave have some graphics that say postgresql in fonts / sources we can't easily update. So this one might be an issue (let people not forget a number of the powered by postgresql buttons would need updating). So of your list, I see very few items that are actually significant work. I think the next step for anyone who seriously wants to push this forward needs to do is see about how available the various domain names we need to aquire are, and also to contact a good number of packagers to get thier input on how much effort this will involve for them. Those two things could be show stoppers, but nothing on your list looks like one to me. -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: