10
$\begingroup$

Please merge [open-question] to [open-problem].

Edit: The tag synonym has been created but we need 4 upvotes for moderators to merge tags according to the current procedure. If you like this proposed merge, please upvote this question!

$\endgroup$
15
  • $\begingroup$ this can be viewed as good or bad :), but my awesome moderator powers (AMP$^{TM}$) converted my vote into a confirmed synonym :) $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2010 at 17:11
  • $\begingroup$ @Suresh: Thanks! $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2010 at 17:52
  • $\begingroup$ Moderators: tag status-completed? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2010 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Jukka: No, the tag synonym has been created but the tags have not been merged. We need 4 upvotes for merging. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2010 at 20:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ btw I'm happy to revisit the 4-vote policy if people think that's too much: we don't have that much activity on meta. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2010 at 20:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Suresh: The specific number 4 might have room to reconsider, but right not I am still unsure if the number should be decreased. Considering that merging is irreversible, I guess that it is good to take some reasonable time since merging is proposed before actually merging the tags. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2010 at 20:54
  • $\begingroup$ Uh-oh, I assumed that the merger was done, too, as there really isn't any reason not to do it in trivial cases like this. I'm more and more inclined to think that we need a more lightweight protocol for doing straightforward tag cleanup. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2010 at 20:54
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding the irreversibility: Are the mergers completely "invisible"? Once a merger is performed, is it impossible to find out which posts were affected by a particular merger? Can't we see anything in the edit history of the question? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2010 at 20:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Jukka: Good point. I suspect that merges are invisible, but I am not definitely sure. I hope that Suresh may know more about how merges work. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2010 at 21:49
  • $\begingroup$ merges appear to be invisible. I checked a question with a tag that I merged yesterday, and there's no trace of information. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2010 at 22:53
  • $\begingroup$ I also tried using the /posts/..id.../revisions trick, and even there the merge appears to be invisible. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 1, 2010 at 22:57
  • $\begingroup$ In that case we can do what I did below: compose a list of posts that are affected. Then it can be manually undone if someone insists. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 2, 2010 at 10:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Suresh: This request has reached 4 upvotes. Can you please do this merge? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 3, 2010 at 3:11
  • $\begingroup$ yup. btw in case I don't see it, a moderator flag is another way to get my attention. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 3, 2010 at 5:25
  • $\begingroup$ @Suresh: Thanks! And next time I will remember about a moderator flag. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 3, 2010 at 5:32

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

These posts will be affected (current tag open-question, new tag open-problem):

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thanks! If anyone is wondering, it is easy to retag this specific question. Here I am following the procedure of merges because (a) I want to see if anyone has an objection before retagging, (b) I would like to see how merges work and how long it takes to make a decision, and (c) I do not want to bump the question just because of retagging. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 2, 2010 at 15:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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