On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> So maybe a cross with Peters suggestoin whereby we somehow split it >> into 3 groups - one that has supported versions, one that has >> unsupported, and one that has development (which now would be devel >> and 9.3). > >> Might that be even better? > > Seems a bit verbose to me, but then again, I'm not one of the people > who is confused. > > In any case, if we do change the wording, I'd like to lobby again > for using "obsolete" rather than "unsupported" for EOL versions. > That seems less likely to be misinterpreted.
Obsolete would work fine for me from a wording perspective, but it's a term I believe we don't use anywhere else. We are talking about supported and EOL, but not obsolete. But if it makes things more clear, it wouldn't be bad to invent a new term... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
