On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:16:42AM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:33:27AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 03:01:33PM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > > Membership of
> > >
> > > sounds better than
> > >
> > > Membership in
> > >
> > > to me so I'll suggest that.
> >
> > No, *membership* is the term I'm complaining about. When a ticket is made a
> > child of a parent ticket, it doesn't become its "member" in the same way a
> > user becomes a "member" of a group.
>
> This seems to be a matter of opinion; membership seems like the correct
> terminology to me: the child tickets are indeed forming an implicit
> group around the parent tickets.
But the same message is used for the converse relationship - the parent
tickets become "members" of child tickets. Yes, they too are forming an
implicit grouping around child tickets, but using the same terms for both is
still pointless as it creates a confusing message when there's no apparent
need for confusion. Heck, simply printing the exact description of the
action taken ("Ticket made parent of %1" etc) would be better than this.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
