https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166723
--- Comment #34 from Tuomas Hietala <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Lars Jødal from comment #31) > Well, as a (typical?) user, I think of Reject and Accept in this way: > > Reject: No, I do not want the change, make the underlying document go back > to what it was, i.e., the resulting document should be unchanged compared to > the baseline document. > > Accept: Yes, I want the change, incorporate it into the underlying document, > i.e., the resulting document be changed from the baseline. > > In both cases: The document is of course changed in relation to "baseline > with tracked changed", and the tracked change (with some representation > under the hood) is removed as a tracked change, so the current document will > have one less tracked change. > > As I understand the idea behind, and use of, Reinstate, it is to be used > when one would otherwise use Reject, but wants it to be seen, what was > suggested. I can see that under the hood, this must call for quite different > code than simply removing the suggested change. As a user, I think of it as > "reject the suggested change, but leave a track of what was suggested". Like > this: > > Reinstate (or what term we end up with): No, I do not want the change, but I > want the document with change-tracking to reflect my action (which a simple > Rejct will not do). The document is changed from baseline, but in a way such > that if I afterwards Accept all changes, then I am back to baseline. Yes, I agree with this. > > > > > The action we're discussing is an _acceptance_, not a _rejection_. After > > > the > > > acceptance, a reversion is introduced as a tracked change. > > > > I suppose "Accept, then revert" the would then be the most technically > > correct description for what happens 'under the hood'. But I don't think it > > would make sense for the average user who is not a developer or LO > > power-user. > > Trying to understand: In what way is Reinstante an acceptance? Do you mean > "acceptance" in the sense that the change still is part of the text (even > though it involves text tracked as deleted)? Or...? So if I understood Eyal's argument correctly, on a technical level Reinstate is something like "Accept followed by revert". But my argument is that it's not necessarily a good idea to expose to the user what happens on technical level, much like we usually talk about "water" instead of "dihydrogen monoxide". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
