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

On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> But I can understand the confusion - do you have a suggestion for how
>>>> to write it to make it more obvious what the actual problem is?
>>
>>> I don't think I communicated the problem right.
>>
>> Yeah, you did, but we need a concrete suggestion as to how to improve
>> the wording.
>
> Yeah. Well, I wanted to make sure I got my point across right before
> doing any suggestions.

Just FWIW, you did get it across fine to me at least :)

>> I wonder if just adding "in" would help:
>>
>> This page in other versions: 9.2 / 9.1 / 9.0 / 8.4 | In unsupported versions: 9.3 / 8.3 / 8.2 / 8.1 / 8.0 / 7.4 / 7.3 / 7.2 / devel
>
> That seems like a good suggestion to me. Granted, this kind of user
> complaint is pretty rare to catch articulated, so it's hard to do much
> other than intuition...but I like it.

That would certainly be easy enough to do.

Another thought is should we somehow deal with 9.3 different
specifically? IIRC I've heard this complaint once before - and that
was during 9.2 beta... During "normal non-beta months", it's more
apparent - the problem here is, if I understand you correctly, that
9.3 is labeled as unsupported (which it is, but it made the person
think that the functionality would be unsupported once 9.3 is
*released*, which it certainly won't be).

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?

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