14

Please perform the following gis.stackexchange.com retagging actions:

  1. Merge the and tags into
  2. Rename to

This means that in the future, even when there will be an OpenLayers with major version 4,5,6,..., all OpenLayers questions should be tagged .

Justification:

Currently, gis.stackexchange.com has the tags , and . "OpenLayers 3" has been rebranded to simply "OpenLayers", to make it easier to switch to semantic versioning in the future.

When OpenLayers 2 was still more widely used than OpenLayers 3, was introduced. Both and have since been used for OpenLayers 2 questions, but were never made synonyms.

With that in mind, it makes sense to get rid of the tag, use as tag for all contemporary OpenLayers questions, and for questions about old OpenLayers 2.

  • Have you reviewed the Q&As that led to the current tagging scheme for OpenLayers? meta.gis.stackexchange.com/questions/4368 meta.gis.stackexchange.com/questions/3914 I think the tagging scheme you propose could be implemented without too much manual re-tagging but we need to be sure that you have the top answerers of OpenLayers 3 questions on board before doing it: gis.stackexchange.com/tags/openlayers-3/topusers – PolyGeo Jan 3 '17 at 9:58
  • Yes, I have read that. The situation has changed as of today, because there is no "OpenLayers 3" library any more. Just "OpenLayers 2" and "OpenLayers". I do not know the technical details of merging and renaming tags here, but it seems to me that if performed in the order I suggested above, there should be no need to do any manual re-tagging. – ahocevar Jan 3 '17 at 10:06
  • Is there any way to make other top answerers aware of this thread? As far as I remember, I can only tag one person in a comment. – ahocevar Jan 3 '17 at 10:17
  • I've added the featured meta tag which will give it a better chance of being seen by all users, including the top answerers of OpenLayers questions. – PolyGeo Jan 3 '17 at 11:04
  • I think you can post a link to this question in chat, and then, ping such users with @username. The 'featured' tag actually does not work so well. Currently, we have very few people actively participating here in meta (3 users), and I think this is a major problem for us; when actions are carried out unilaterally or even against what the community decides (because no one will see and argue such decisions). – Andre Silva Jan 3 '17 at 12:30
  • 1
    I have linked this thread in github.com/openlayers/openlayers/pull/6320 and asked those in favor to upvote this question. – ahocevar Jan 4 '17 at 9:31
  • I've set this to status-planned because I've now asked the other mods for any last minute objections to it before it is implemented. I try to get the endorsement of the other mods on any consensus I perceive to be emerging from Meta Q&As before I proceed to implementing. – PolyGeo Jan 9 '17 at 3:39
5

OpenLayers questions currently have three tags stored:

  • with 2711 questions which I think are mostly about OpenLayers 2. I think this number is only extractable using a mod tool. Some of these are expected to be about OpenLayers 3, which is due to them being asked before the Q&A on Should openlayers-2 and openlayers be synonyms?
  • with 626 questions and I think these should be all about OpenLayers 2
  • with 1412 questions and I think these should be all about OpenLayers 3. You will probably see 4123 questions because of the synonym between and .

When someone tries to tag a question as currently it will default to which is the position reached by the Q&A of Is it time to make [openlayers] tag synonym of [openlayers-3] instead of [openlayers-2]?

It will be very easy to achieve what you propose using these steps in this order :

  1. Remove the synonymy between and
  2. Merge with without creating a synonym from to (the mod tool used to do this has that as an option). For the small number that may be about OpenLayers 3 rather than 2 we should just "fix 'em as we find 'em" rather than proposing a retagging campaign.
  3. Merge with with a synonym from to (so that does not resurrect). This performs a rename.

I think both the current tagging or your proposed tagging can work well so I am ambivalent as to which is used but I always like to defer to the top answerers of questions in a tagging group when changing how they are tagged.

I think an upvote on this answer should indicate endorsement of what you propose.

3

I think this method will be messy when there is an ol4 tag (actually, it is already being, given the change from ol2 to ol3).

I propose using one tag for and users would specify version (if needed) in the body; just as it is done with in most questions. This way, managing the tag along time is tractable and there is no need to perform massive retags.

This has an interesting advantage in the long term that is facilitating users escalating to tag gold badges which extends the moderator tools for such users, helping to keep the site clean and organized.

  • There is also the option of creating a master tag, and version tags, where version tags would only be used when answers to that question are tied to the version. See: meta.gis.stackexchange.com/questions/3609/using-version-tags and meta.gis.stackexchange.com/questions/3609/using-version-tags/…. – Andre Silva Jan 3 '17 at 11:56
  • There won't be an OpenLayers branded as "OpenLayers 4" (ol4), so there won't be a need to create a tag like that. Since OpenLayers 2 has a completely different API than OpenLayers, it makes sense to keep an openlayers-2 tag. Since OpenLayers will likely switch to semantic versioning and have no such drastic API changes, but more frequent major version updates (4, 5, ...) in the future, it also makes sense to use the same openlayers tag for present and future versions. – ahocevar Jan 3 '17 at 11:56
  • @ahocevar, I think we never know how drastically a version change will be, but if the proposal is to keep openlayers for ol3 and future versions, that is ok to me too. I think you should make that clear in your question, though. – Andre Silva Jan 3 '17 at 12:11
  • 2
    Thanks @Andre Silva. I updated the question in an attempt to make that clearer. – ahocevar Jan 3 '17 at 12:15
  • @ahocevar Since OpenLayers will likely switch to semantic versioning and have no such drastic API changes, but more frequent major version updates (4, 5, ...) isn't the point of semantic versioning that a new major release number indicates that there are breaking (drastic) changes, otherwise it isn't semantic versioning but some other versioning. – nmtoken Nov 15 at 15:40
  • @ahocevar, revisiting this topic now we are at OpenLayers 6, perhaps I'm misunderstanding the term branding here, but OpenLayers 6: call for funding suggests that OpenLayers 6 and ol6 are brands, otherwise wouldn't the funding call have been just for Openlayers? – nmtoken Nov 15 at 15:48
  • @nmtoken That call for funding you linked in your comment was neither initiated by nor supported by the OpenLayers steering committee. It was an initiative of the Openlayers development association. For reference, look at the openlayers.org webpage, which only talks about "OpenLayers". Not "OpenLayers 6", not "ol", and not "ol6". On semantic versioning: Openlayers (version 3+) is a complete rewrite and a different product than OpenLayers 2. Same thing as with AngularJS (version 1) vs. Angular (now version 8). – ahocevar Nov 16 at 21:14
  • @ahocevar, but what about differences between 3 to 4 to 5 to 6. If there are no major changes in the API, then OpenLayers isn't using semantic versioning. We should be on 3.n, not 6. If OL6 and OL3 are similar APIs despite numbering indicating otherwise then single tag openlayers makes sense, but if OpenLayers is correctly using semantic versioning, and there are major differences, then there should be separate tags. – nmtoken Nov 17 at 10:53
  • OpenLayers uses semantic versioning correctly, and there are a few breaking changes between 3, 4, 5 and 6. But as I said, OpenLayers 3 was a complete rewrite with an entirely new API. – ahocevar Nov 18 at 11:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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