On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Michael Nolan <htf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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. > > > I suggested the following wording: > > This page is for PostgreSQL version 9.2 > For the equivalent page in other versions see: > Currently Supported Versions: 9.1, 9.0, 8.4 > Unreleased or Development versions: 9.3, Devel > Older releases that are no longer being maintained: 8.3, 8.2, 8.1, 8.0 > > Yes, it is more verbose, but the web is one place where space is not at a > premium, and this is (IMHO) far clearer for the casual reader.
Actually, space "above the fold" *is* at a huge premium on the web. If we put it at the bottom of the page your argument for space not at a premium would be valid. But we really don't want anything using up more than one row at the top. > A separate issue is, when 9.3 goes live or 8.4 goes EOL, do these pages > automatically get moved to the 'supported' or 'not maintained' sections, > respectively, or do all these pages have to be revised? That is all handled automatically. -- 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
