https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166723
--- Comment #50 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Lars Jødal from comment #49) > Reinstate: Alice is not happy about the change, but instead of just > deciding, she uses Reinstate to produce a text that contains tracks of the > proposed change. _If_ Accept is used on the text after Reinstate, the result > will correspond to Reject (unchanged baseline). But the case is not closed, > and Bob has the possibility of editing the change futher (Reject, Reinstate, > rewriting...). Lars, I'm sorry, but - you're just repeating a mistaken claim from earlier comments. Remember: "reinstate" accepts a change into the baseline, then creates a tracked reversion of the original change, i.e. removes the change from the proposed version of the document. Thus, instead of Bob having to convince Alice to accept his proposal, a "reinstate" would put her in the position of needing to convince Bob to accept her proposal. So, in this scenario, Alice would certainly _not_ use "reinstate". > Can we agree that this scenario describes reasonable use of Reinstate (as > well as Accept and Reject)? No, it is an _unreasonable_ use of "reinstate". Moreover, you neglected to include my first set of proposals, which is the actual functionality of this command: "Accept and track reversion" (or similar wording). > As a user, I > would prefer "Oppose change" or "Reject but track", both of which to me > reasonably well describes what I/Alice wants to do with the proposed change. As a user, it is imperative that we not show you the command with that name, since that would reinforce a misperception of its semantics. Alice, who opposes the change, would, in fact, be accepting it, which is really not what she wants to do. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
