13

This is an update to: Merge firefox-related tags?

We now have:

How is this going to end up? The Firefox release numbers seem to go to ∞ now.
I understand that FF3.6 and FF4 have its merit, but anything after that probably shouldn't need its own tag anymore. What do you think?

By the way, we've dropped version numbers for as well.

1

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
7

The struck out tags below have been made tag synonyms and merged with .

8

Didn't we have a previous question on this? I'm for dropping versions completely & merge everything to Firefox.

6
  • 1
    See first sentence of my Question :) No bounty on Meta means I need to duplicate.
    – slhck
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 15:29
  • @slhck ok, no probs.
    – Sathyajith Bhat Mod
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 15:30
  • 1
    +1 to this solution
    – Raystafarian
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 15:39
  • 1
    my name is studiohack and I support this solution.
    – studiohack Mod
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 19:27
  • I think we have enough agreement here. What do you say, @studiohack, wanna go for it? Maybe let's leave version 3.6 and 4, being the last of their kind (per Oliver's answer).
    – slhck
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 21:14
  • Perhaps revisit meta.superuser.com/questions/3427/merge-firefox-related-tags also
    – Simon Sheehan
    Commented Mar 9, 2012 at 1:39
5

I think it would be reasonable to have a tag for and possibly for ESR releases.

Everything else gets tagged .

2
  • 1
    There is something to that - though i think firefox (for firefox's current version) and firefox-esr would be a good compromise
    – Journeyman Geek Mod
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 16:12
  • 1
    Firefox 27 by the end of 2012, Google Chrome 24 by the end of 2012. Too many numbers!
    – iglvzx
    Commented Mar 9, 2012 at 3:15
0

Comment.

In the situation of program version merging In general:
Each are different programs, no one would say that photoshop4 is photoshop10.
each can have different features and different problems.
For some programs the versions are night and day different in problems, interface changes even, and existance of items.
for some programs there are only minor changes.

For a user, the NEWer the "latest version", is the latest change to the user:
These tags would be the Least "used", and possibly the most important difference at that Time
A view of them would suggest that the "latest version" Tag is unused and useless, so easy to dump into the pile of "that program".
But
That could be an error of assumption
The opposite is usually true, the new item is the new change is the most active discussion at the time.

As the seperation of program versions is layed out on a normal Forum, it would often look like this:

Program V1-V8 (pile of old stuff and some rare new questions)

Program V9 (Piles of old and new questions, still active I/O between users)

Program V10 (less questions, still active I/O between users)

Program V11 (hardly any questions, just came out)

With the older questions uncerimoniously dumped raw into the Old bucket as new versions came along. The Old bucket could be just [PROGRAM] and would still be arbitrarily applied.

That same pattern should be able to be used here. Version still in active discussion would be maintained seperate. Versions not in active use, by default, would not have new tags created (good luck with that).

13
  • I'm having trouble following you. Can you please be more concise and give an example? The huge problem is—if I understand you correctly—that most users don't care about the version they use. Firefox will not display the version number anymore, just like Chrome. They aren't going to use the tags we create for them
    – slhck
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 19:28
  • Then how did the tags come about?
    – Psycogeek
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 19:30
  • Somebody created them. Note that Firefox used to show these version numbers, but AFAIK doesn't do that anymore.
    – slhck
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 19:31
  • In the above pattern, which could apply hundreds of times over, with the above question, I would think about retaining the Firefox10 , as they are current, so it was currentaly used. All i am trying to point out is, it is the smallest bucket, but does not define it as least nessisary.
    – Psycogeek
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 19:35
  • Yeah, but that'd mean an immense overhead in maintaining the tags, basically we have to do something every time a version comes out.
    – slhck
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 19:43
  • Then form a Pattern, a fact. "All program tags on SU will hereby and forever be referred to as their common program name only, without any version" Otherwise I am going vote to close all program versions discussions as Dupes :-)
    – Psycogeek
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 19:50
  • There's a difference between Firefox and Chrome pushing new versions silently every few weeks and Microsoft releasing major Office versions every few years. In fact, we only use versions for really large update intervals (such as OSes, Office, etc.)
    – slhck
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 19:51
  • And I am still using Office '97 :-) but in that use I would not make a new Tag for it. Again, the same above pattern could apply. My version of it is not interesting or active, therfore I can use [Word] or [office]
    – Psycogeek
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 19:54
  • When it comes to Maintain, ANY use of the version, creates a maintainance. (see office). No use of the version, the tag is then created, and how is maintance different? if tags cannot be locked , then there is a larger maintance problem with merging than with leaving an active version alone ? (I assume from what i have seen) Persistant re-creation of the tag, indicates that somebody think they need it, and it is a bigger problem of maintance? plus the lack of the specific tag.
    – Psycogeek
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 20:15
  • Tags for Firefox should correspond to the naming scheme of that particular version of Firefox. We cannot assume that they'll continue with the numbering scheme ad infinitum. Just like Windows went from Windows 3 to Windows 95 and then Windows 98 to ME to XP to Vista and back to 7 and then 8, Mozilla may choose a different naming scheme sometime in the future. It's best to just follow that.
    – Ben Richards
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 20:20
  • @sidran32 More of the programs seem to be leaning towards using a version number now, as opposed to some new trick name. what once was Sparrow , Hawk , and Eagle :-) versions often has a number as we all become binary units of the system. But the same pattern can still apply. when WINwhatever is no longer useful, it gets dumped under arbitrary windows.
    – Psycogeek
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 20:35
  • 1
    @Psycogeek It may seem that way, but it still can change. Making assumptions now that are hard to backtrack later would be a bad idea.
    – Ben Richards
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 21:07
  • @sidran32 Ok lets change it, how does that change the pattern in my answer? . On firefox version 28 they re-name it SnowFox , 2 days later Tags [snowfox] , [snowfox-beta] , [snowfox-prev] , [snowfox-.09] , [snowfox-081] tags made [firefox-27]exists . . years later firefox is no longer an item, and all firefox versions are merged to [Firefox]. [Snowfox] has an arbitrary , and at its second year, the layers of mess made when it came out are merged, [Snowfox-V9] is a popular used tag and somebody keeps recreating it :-) so it is there. [Firefox] hangs out as it would anyway till it is dead.
    – Psycogeek
    Commented Mar 8, 2012 at 22:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .