On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net>wrote:
> 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. > True, but 'how do I get to this page for some other version?' isn't the reason someone brings up a page, so it doesn't need to be above the fold. Prime space should be used for prime purposes. > > 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. > Why do we need anything at all at the top regarding other versions? It is probably desirable to say what version a page is for as part of the overall description of what the page is about, and that can probably fit on one line. > > > 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. > I suspected as much, but what happens behind the curtain is not always obvious (nor does it need to be for 99% of the user community.) Thanks for enlightening me. -- Mike Nolan > >
