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

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Michael Nolan <htfoot@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> I suggested the following wording:
>
> This page is for PostgreSQL version 9.2
> For the equivalent page in other versions see:
> Currently Supported Versions:  9.1,  9.0,  8.4
> Unreleased or Development versions: 9.3, Devel
> Older releases that are no longer being maintained: 8.3, 8.2, 8.1, 8.0
>
> Yes, it is more verbose, but the web is one place where space is not at a
> premium, and this is (IMHO) far clearer for the casual reader.

Actually, space "above the fold" *is* at a huge premium on the web.

If we put it at the bottom of the page your argument for space not at
a premium would be valid. But we really don't want anything using up
more than one row at the top.


> A separate issue is, when 9.3 goes live or 8.4 goes EOL, do these pages
> automatically get moved to the 'supported' or 'not maintained' sections,
> respectively, or do all these pages have to be revised?

That is all handled automatically.

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