6

There is already a question using the tag workbench1.3: Change Amiga Shell keyboard layout in Workbench 1.3

(Yes, the tag in the current form would likely have to be changed to workbench-1.3, but that's not that important for this discussion.)

There were different Versions of the Amiga Workbench, for instance Workbench 1.2, Workbench 1.3, Workbench 2.0, Workbench 2.1 and so on.

Does it make sense to have corresponding specific tags workbench-1.3, workbench-2.0, etc.? Is such a specific tag when searching for workbench related questions necessary? There are substantial differences between the major versions and noticeable, but often smaller differences between the minor versions, but does it justify having separate tags for them?

Maybe a general tag workbench suffices?

Also, while Workbench in a retrocomputing context can probably only refer to the Amiga Workbench, one might like to have it specifically prefixed like that: amiga-workbench. However, that is likely unnecessary, as questions regarding the Workbench would usually be tagged with amiga as well.

Which style of tagging for the Amiga Workbench would you prefer and what is the rationale for your choice?

| |
7

It might be worth having both version-specific and generic tags for the Workbench. I'm modelling it from SO, where we have a tag as well as , .

Questions about the Workbench series in general should be using the tag (or just , though I think the former is clearer). Questions that only pertain to a specific model should use that model's tag (for example, problems that only happened with one model, or specific types of hardware each model used).

| |
  • 2
    Sounds like a good suggestion. Also, if the a tag amiga-workbench (as opposed to just workbench) makes it more clear what is referred, I'm fine with that. amiga-workbench could be the master tag and workbench could be a synonym tag. – blubberdiblub Apr 21 '16 at 18:27
  • What about the tags that include the version number? Would the master tag be amiga-workbench-1.3 or workbench-1.3? – blubberdiblub Apr 22 '16 at 4:36
  • 1
    @blubberdiblub We might as well include amiga, since there's space for it. – Åna Apr 22 '16 at 16:53
  • 1
    Agree that there should be a generic and a version specific tag. How specific should they be? Ie. we should have workbench, 1.3 or 1.x, 2.0 and 3.0 at least, but would it make sense to also have 3.1 or should one just specify in the question that it is version 3.1 and use the workbench-3 tag? – nsandersen Apr 27 '16 at 10:13
  • 1
    I think if you are going to have version specific tags, they need to be inclusive of the major releases, so there would be amiga-workbench-3.0, amiga-workbench-3.1 and amiga-workbench-3.9 – Payton Byrd Apr 28 '16 at 16:54
2

Why "Workbench"? The Amiga operating system was made by two components, Workbench and Kickstart, that really was meant to run in only some combinations (namely, the major version of the two should match). Moreover somewhat later in the life of the machine, the combination of the two were called "AmigaOS".

So I propose: amigaos-1.x, amigaos-2.x, amigaos-3.x, amigaos-3.5, amigaos-3.9, amigaos-4.x, the latter three if we also want to talk about non-historical versions made after Commodore went bankrupt.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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