Re: A user report of misinterpretation of 'unsupported versions'

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:51:13AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)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 <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +