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

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> 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, but then again, I'm not one of the people
who is confused.

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.

            regards, tom lane