Re: Reports on obsolete Postgres versions

On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 9:24 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:

> > On 2 Apr 2024, at 00:56, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > I ended up writing the attached doc patch. I found that some or our
> > text was overly-wordy, causing the impact of what we were trying to say
> > to be lessened. We might want to go farther than this patch, but I
> > think it is an improvement.
>
> Agreed, this is an good incremental improvement over what we have.
>
> > I also moved the <strong> text to the bottom of the section
>
> +1
>
> A few small comments:
>
> +considers performing minor upgrades to be less risky than continuing to
> +run superseded minor versions.</em>
>
> I think "superseded minor versions" could be unnecessarily complicated for
> non-native speakers, I consider myself fairly used to reading english but
> still
> had to spend a few extra (brain)cycles parsing the meaning of it in this
> context.
>
> + We recommend that users always run the latest minor release associated
>
> Or perhaps "current minor release" which is the term we use in the table
> below
> on the same page?
>

I do like the term "current" better. It conveys (at least a bit) that we
really consider all the older ones to be, well, obsolete. The difference
"current vs obsolete" is stronger than "latest vs not quite latest".

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