On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:51:13AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > 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...
The problem with "obsolete" is that, in some way, 9.2 makes 9.1 obsolete, particularly when 9.2 greatly improves features 9.1 had. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
