"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
> > I have e-mailed Doc again, asking him to remove the 'direct' in the line
> > 'Ingres was the direct ancestor of PostgreSQL' -- direct implies, IMO,
> > shared code. Thanks for clarifying, Bruce...
> I still think that since there is no shared code you can't say that
> Ingres was the parent to Postgres, more like an older brother. Guess
> that makes Ingres PostgreSQL's great uncle. :-)
ROTFL
The guys at Linux Journal are very apologetic that they overlooked
PostgreSQL -- if the consensus is to change from 'ancestor' to some
other usage (maybe step-ancestor??), then they can do it -- it's not set
in stone.
I personally am comfortable with 'ancestor' in this usage -- there are
instances of where a program was completely rewritten and only a version
number change happened, even with no shared codebase (the webserver
logfile analyzer 'analog' has had this happen more than once -- in
particular, the code was completely rewritten from scratch between
version 2.11 and 3.0. Analog 3.0 shares no code at all with analog 2.11
-- not necessarily the best software design, but, it's Steven's codebase
to play with.).
It's like the relationship between the CERN, NCSA, and Apache
webservers.
They will be at least giving credit where credit is due (like you said,
it's not a major point).
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11