As an end-user I agree with the add/remove lexicon being more clear to users, if not more technically accurate. Perhaps it was meant to convey the intrinsic dedupe quality of Pulp, but I think that could still be made clear.
- Kodiak On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Jeff Ortel <jor...@redhat.com> wrote: > During the last pulp3 MVP review, a terminology question was raised > regarding "associating" content with a > repository. And more specifically "unassociating" vs "disassociate" > content. I took an action item to define > those terms in the Glossary section of the MVP wiki[1] which I did. I > added definitions along with a brief > definition of a Repository. After doing so, it occurred to me that given > a repository is a collection of > content, we may want to drop the associate, unassociate|disassociate > terminology and just go with what we > really mean. > > "Associate" replaced with "Add content to a repository". > > and > > "Unassociate"|"Disassociate" replaced with "Removing content from a > repository". > > > An example use case would read: > > "As a user, I want to add content to a repository." > > > These terms come from the first days of pulp and I understand the original > intent to distinguish between > creating new content and adding to a repository. I'm just thinking the > distinction may be obvious and > intuitive and additional terms (that need explanation) are not necessary. > > Thoughts? > > > > > [1] https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp_3_Minimum_Viable_Product > > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev