On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Tom Lane 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 Postg
Magnus Hagander 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,
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Daniel Farina wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Daniel Farina writes:
>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Magnus Hagander
>>> wrote:
But I can understand the confusion - do you have a suggestion for how
to write it to make
