Timeline for Synonyms and Redundant Tags
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2013 at 7:59 | comment | added | ypercubeᵀᴹ |
I think SQL-Server questions shouls have a [sql-server] tag and a specific per version tag, 2000, 2005, 2008, 2008-R2 or 2012. We'll have more questions tagged with 2012 in the future but that doesn't mean that they need specific features of 2012 to be solved. I don't think you agree to merge all the sql-server versions tags?
|
|
| Aug 9, 2011 at 19:31 | history | edited | jcolebrandMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 188 characters in body
|
| Aug 9, 2011 at 19:29 | comment | added | jcolebrand Mod | And so it may be. Let's leave this Q up for a bit and see what support it garners. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 17:40 | comment | added | Richard | Oh, that makes more sense. ;) Unfortunately, I don't know what everyone assumes. However, looking at the 11 R2 posts, it seems that none of them are asking questions that are specifically R2. I haven't looked at the 216 non-R2 questions, but I would think that the vast majority of them would apply to R2. If the differences are too great between R1 and R2, I wouldn't mind leaving R2. It just seems unused by comparison. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 15:05 | comment | added | jcolebrand Mod | I meant, there is a difference between R1 and R2. Do you think we should reversion so that non-R2 Q become called out for the fact that they're non R2? Does everyone just assume that 2008 means R2? | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 15:02 | comment | added | Richard | I would think it would give us all the benefits of merging any two tags. Searches become simpler; deciding which tag to use becomes simpler; you help prevent tag overload, etc. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 14:27 | comment | added | jcolebrand Mod | What benefit does merging give us on these two tags? | |
| Aug 8, 2011 at 13:50 | history | answered | Richard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |