On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 16:25, Eben Eliason<e...@laptop.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Martin > Dengler<mar...@martindengler.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 10:01:19AM -0400, Eben Eliason wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Tomeu Vizoso<to...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: >>> > But are you meaning that we should name the current one "Keep a copy" >>> > and when we have versions add "Keep"? >>> >>> No, no. I'm urging that we name it "Keep new version" now if we rename >>> it, so that it's meaning doesn't change down the road when versions >>> are introduced. >> >> "Keep new version" seems a lot closer to a description of the >> implementation than of the user-desired result. Unless this "new >> version" becomes the active one (i.e., the one upon which the user >> continues to work, assuming they don't close the application), isn't >> the result of the button press better called "Keep[ing of a] backup >> version"? > > I'm happy to entertain other terminology. All I'm really trying to get > across is that, technically, this action is strictly not what I > interpreted as "keep a copy" in the presence of versions, and I don't > want to confuse the terminology later by mixing up the terms. > > I'd be equally satisfied, I think, by finding a better term for what > I'm presently describing as "keep a copy", wherein a brand new tree_id > is assigned to the copy, detaching it from the history (and > collaboration scope) of the original. The fundamental issue is whether > or not version/collaboration history is retained with the action, so > let's ensure that we name both of these types of copy operations at > the same time, even if we only have one of them for now, so that it > can be extended later. > > Ben's suggestion of "checkpoint" could work. Perhaps "Keep checkpoint" > would be better to retain the action. You're right that it's more like > "keep backup version"....that is, the keep operation which retains the > tree_id basically writes the current state of the activity as a > version (the "just-now-previous" one), and allows you to continue > working in the "most current" one. No branching, in the traditional > sense, happens here.
Should we discuss this in sugar-devel? Why not asking any of the teachers in IAEP what is more natural for them? Regards, Tomeu > Eben > >>> > Regards, >>> > >>> > Tomeu >>> >>> Eben >> >> > _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel