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

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com> writes:
>>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> 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).

I have applied a patch that splits the list into three groups -
supported versions, development versions (9.3beta + devel) and
unsupported versions.

As a bonus, this forced me to fix the datamodel underlying it enough
that it's now possible to report bugs in beta versions in the bugs
form, which has also been requested quite a few times.


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