https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166723
--- Comment #30 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Tuomas Hietala from comment #29) > I suppose "Accept, then revert" the would then be the most technically > correct description for what happens Well, if "accept" is technically correct, that means that "reject" is a (technically) incorrect description of what happens... which is why we can't use _that_ in the name. > 'under the hood'. Change tracking semantics are not under the hood. They are the mental model we are teaching users about - through the naming of commands, the experimentation with their effects, the Help and so on. If we introduce technically-incorrect notions into users' minds, we'll keep them jumbled instead of helping sort things out. But with - because of the tricky nature of this particular command, I would again like us to consider the third alternative, or set of alternatives: * "Invert suggestion" * "Invert change" * "Flip to reversion" * "Invert" these may seem less intuitive to many. But - that is not a bad thing, because: * It relates this command has a complex nature * It prevents misunderstading I (nothing "technically incorrect") * It prevents misunderstading II (since you are unlikely to make a wrong guess about what it does) * It indicates the "self-inverting" nature of the command, i.e. it clarifies that if you apply it twice it is as though you never applied it at all. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
