* - your email address will never be displayed on the site.
Topic History of: Check In? Max. showing the last posts - (Last post first)
Author
Message
Carsten Rose Lundberg
I have to agree. It's not helping people learning version control labeling actions differently - they have a hard time grasping the concept and then you decide to give them a whole different terminology. This makes it impossible to understand information describing Subversion else where let alone ask anybody for help. "You need to commit your changes ... Commit?"
Subversion is used for teams so everybody needs to speak the same language - since Subversion is most likely owned by the command line programmers I don't think the GUI people should change terminology. Focus on workflows and common tasks. All your icons are the same size is that because they are used equally much? Try to think workflows as a combined set of actions. Ask "What's your task?" and the present people with the actions relevant to that task.
You should stick to a principle only as long as it makes sense or until you are convinced it should be revised.
Please reconsider this principle.
And please bear in mind that it's only because I like the program so much that I want to help make it even better.
eriks
We are planning on sticking with the terms we chose for 1.0. We chose these terms (check in, history) because in our experience these terms are more clear to people new to version control/subversion, and they're perfectly clear to anyone that is already familiar with the topics.
jg
Any chance you will be changing the name of the Commit action to "Commit" instead of "Check In"?
As I work with co-workers and try to help them understand the difference in paradigms between lock-modify-unlock and copy-modify-merge, the presence of a "Check In" action really confuses the issue.
Why did you decide to use a term that really isn't a part of the Subversion world?
