+1 Add/remove is definitely more clear. Associate/disassociate feels like more of an engineering terminology.
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Ina Panova <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for add/remove. An aside note, i want to make sure we stick to 'remove' > specifically' and not 'delete'. > I wanted to bring this up, since these 2 terms are quite similar but still > feels different. > > > > -------- > Regards, > > Ina Panova > Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc. > > "Do not go where the path may lead, > go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> +1 to the "adding ..." and "removing ..." terminology. I think it will be >> more clear for users. >> >> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Jeremy Audet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> > As an end-user I agree with the add/remove lexicon being more clear to >>> users, if not more technically accurate. >>> >>> Same. Either phrasing gets the message across, but IMO, "add content to >>> a repository" is more unambiguous. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
