https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166723
--- Comment #38 from Lars Jødal <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #37) > (In reply to Lars Jødal from comment #36) > > 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?) You are partly correct. Yes, I will use Reinstate (under whatever name it ends up with) to indicate that my intention is that the text should end up as if I had used Reject. But I will know that text is _not_ yet final - if it was for the final version, I would use Reject. So no, I will not assume that my Reinstate is how things necessarily end. Suppose that I am writing a paper together with Alice (putting me in the role of Bob from Miklos' example). I am not happy with Alice's proposed change. If I want to simply decide, "this is the way it is!", there is really no reason to use Reinstate - I can simple use Reject (and maybe send Alice a note that the case is closed). But if I consider this still a draft, I can use Reinstate instead of Reject. I _propose_ a rejection of her proposal. In the resulting text, my version will be "on top" in the sense that Accept will end up with my versions. Nothing strange in that: Accept chooses the text in the version that the last person working on the document would like it. However, I will know that if I return the document to Alice, she may make further changes, such as Reject'ing or Reinstate'ing my change to her change. Of course, I _could_ use the Reinstate feature just to let Alice know which changes I disagreed with. In that case, I could Reinstate, send Alice a copy ("Don't work on it, it's just for information, I decide, and this is how it's goging to be!"), and then Accept. That is a possible use of Reinstate. But that would be a rather limited use of a feature with much broader capabilities for co-working on a document. > 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. Fine with me, if we can find one. I am all for finding a wording that satisfies: * The wording is understandable to the typical user (i.e., the user will understand what the feature does, not be confused or misunderstand). * It is naturally connected to the existing Reject/Accept features. * There is overall agreement among those who comment here. My best shot has been "Reject but track", but it fails at least on the last point. Who has a better suggestion? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
