Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1V5JEy-0004zu-85 for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:34:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1V5JEx-0005A7-OE for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:34:11 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1V5JEx-0005A1-7a for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:34:11 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1V5JEt-0005Gd-Sp for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:34:10 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1V5JEr-0006pr-FP; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:34:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 13:34:05 -0400 From: Bruce Momjian To: Magnus Hagander Cc: Tom Lane , Daniel Farina , pgsql-docs Subject: Re: A user report of misinterpretation of 'unsupported versions' Message-ID: <20130802173405.GC14543@momjian.us> References: <1211.1373676247@sss.pgh.pa.us> <16495.1373818963@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -3.4 (---) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-docs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:51:13AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > 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). > > > >> 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 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