Every now and again software maintainers and developers add new features and fix bugs. Sometimes these are smaller changes, which do not break anything (minor revisions), sometimes these introduce changes in input syntax, api, etc., which might break existing workflows (major revision).
For example, when switching form xtb 5.9 to xtb 6.0, the interface was completely changed. Command line options were now accessible with double dash instead of single dash. Obviously a user reading answers here is expected to abstract from the (maybe older) information to the current one.
Tags for the major software packages have been established, and I think they will serve well for the time being. Planning a bit ahead though: Should we create tags for specific versions of these packages?
There are plenty of reasons, why this might be a good idea. A counter-argument is that this might create a huge pile of tags you can hardly keep track of. For example:
- Unfortunately there are still plenty of researchers out there not having access to the most current distribution of their software. There are still researchers using Gaussian 09 predominantly, even though it doesn't have support any more. Tagging will immediately give the community a feedback, which version of software is used - an information, which is surprisingly often not as easy to come by as one would think.
- Over time this Q&A will age and some software specific information will no longer be valid. Screenshots may change, interfaces renamed, options restructures, etc.. While I believe most of you answering these questions will include this information in the body, it might be worthwhile having something to sort by.
- Occasionally someone needs to go back to an older version to replicate results. For those it would help tremendously identifying questions with a specific old version in mind.
I'm sure you can think of more.
So I propose orca-3.x and orca-4.x instead of orca, or vasp-6 and vasp-5 instead of vasp, or gaussian-09 and gaussian-16 instead of gaussian, etc.. Obviously for some packages, this has to be more nuanced. What do you think?