On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Michael Nolan wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Magnus Hagander
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Michael Nolan wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In any case, if we do change
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Michael Nolan wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In any case, if we do change the wording, I'd like to lobby again
> >> for using "obsolete" rather tha
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Michael Nolan wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Tom Lane 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 misinterp
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander 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).
>
