Ruby on Rails 3 may be different from Ruby on Rails 2, but Ruby on Rails 3 has been around for 2 years now (see Ruby-on-rails vs ruby-on-rails3), so I think every question tagged with ruby-on-rails is about version 3 now. So why do we still have both a tag ruby-on-rails (63183 questions) and a tag ruby-on-rails-3 (21137 questions)?

If the question is specific about the current version, I expect it only have the ruby-on-rails tag. Another tag for the version is only helpful if it's not about the current version, e.g. ruby-on-rails-2 (145 questions).

So why do we still need the tag ruby-on-rails-3 with 21137 questions? can't we make it a synonym to ruby-on-rails now?

In my perspective, a version in it's own tag isn't very informative, it's enough to have the version noted in the question. People that follow ruby-on-rails will know when the problem is version specific and people working with other versions will understand most of the content anyway.

closed as off-topic by Robert Longson, PeterJ, Arulkumar, Glorfindel, Werner Oct 21 '18 at 16:16

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question's topic is only applicable to one specific site in the Stack Exchange Network. Questions on Meta Stack Exchange should relate to features or policies that commonly apply to the network or the software that drives it, within the guidelines defined in the help center. You should ask this question on the meta site where your concern originated." – Robert Longson, PeterJ, Arulkumar, Glorfindel, Werner
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • We have .NET-2.0, .NET-3.5 and .NET-4.0 tags, because the feature set is substantially different among these versions, and answers to questions can change significantly based on the version being used. You need to convince us that these differences are insignificant with respect to Ruby on Rails versions, and I don't think you've adequately made that case in your question. – Robert Harvey Feb 9 '12 at 23:58
  • @RobertHarvey: Yes, but a version-specific tag used 21137 times for the current version isn't that specifc anymore and has lost what it was meant to communicate. See also You should strongly avoid creating version tags – Jonas Feb 10 '12 at 0:12
  • 1
    That's an argument for people not using the tag wrongly, not for the tag not existing in the first place. – Robert Harvey Feb 10 '12 at 0:14
  • The idea that a base framework name always relates to the "current" version is silly. That means that old questions will be suddenly tagged incorrectly when a new version comes out and fixes or changes things the question was related to. If anything, base framework names should always have a version indicator for no other reason than to prevent tag rot. – cdeszaq Feb 10 '12 at 14:50
  • 1
    I still see questions related to Rails 2.x once in a while. There is a ruby-in-rail-3.2 tag as well, i think. Though I'm not sure, if the version tags really help much, since most questions are tagged ruby-on-rails independent of the questions content. There are a lot of questions with old answers which would need updates. I have discussed this a few weeks ago here – thorsten müller Feb 10 '12 at 15:34
  • @thorstenmuller: Yes, that was also my point, version-tags doesn't add much value. Ruby-on-Rails is Ruby-on-Rails as Jeff wrote. – Jonas Feb 10 '12 at 15:39

Browse other questions tagged .