https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166723
--- Comment #37 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Lars Jødal from comment #36) > baseline = Bob's original text = resulting text after Reject > proposed = Alice's version of the text = resulting text after Accept > > (Hopefully we agree?) Yes, indeed. > Please allow me to think through the "Reject but track" once more. To me, > Reinstate is a tool to use instead of Reject. I think this may be the crux of what motivates some of us to suggest this wording. You are thinking (probably): "If I use 'reinstate', and later accept all the changes, it will be as though I had just rejected to begin with; so I can use it instead of just Reject'ing" (am I correct?) but there's an extra step in that thought process, which the "reinstate" action does not include, which is the assumption that, eventually, all changes are accepted. Accepting all changes can be thought of as switching "proposed" and "baseline", then deleting "proposed" (because eventually, to get to a document with no tracked changes, you must keep only the baseline). when we name the action, we can't assume the extra future action like that. In fact, it could be just the opposite: "If I use 'reinstate', and later give up on idea of making changes, it will be as though I had just accepted to begin with; so I can use it instead of just accept'ing" and the question is what one considers to be the "real" document: Is it the baseline, or the baseline-with-all-accepted changes. Your extra presumed step corresponds to the latter option. I think it is unacceptable. But - instead of trying to insist that the other option is the only legitimate one, I believe we should settle on not "forcing" one view over the other, which is why a focus on the more neutral names seems like the way forward. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
