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

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...

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/