Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 349427

Summary:	[client] Wording changes in the Git workflow
Product:	[ECD] Orion	Reporter:	Szymon Brandys <Szymon.Brandys>
Component:	Git	Assignee:	Project Inbox <orion.git-inbox>
Status:	RESOLVED WONTFIX	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P3	CC:	bokowski, libingw, simon_kaegi
Version:	0.2
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	PC
OS:	Windows 7
Whiteboard:
Bug Depends on:	345208
Bug Blocks:

Description Szymon Brandys

2011-06-15 09:03:48 EDT

I had a chat with Susan about some wording changes in the Git flow. I wanted to describe it in bug 345208 as she suggested, but that bug is closed now.

1. We might use "Stage Changes" instead of "Git Status" in the file navigator
2. "Git Log" could be renamed to "Push Changes"
3. On the Git Status page, there is "Recent commits on >master< >Push<". I suggested "Recent commits on master. >Push<" or see more detailed >Log<. 
4. Similarly for "Recent commits on >origin/master<	>Fetch< >Merge<". There could be "Recent commits on origin/master. >Fetch< and >Merge< them or see more detailed >Log<".

Comment 1 Susan McCourt

2011-06-15 16:10:43 EDT

Libing and I worked on #3 and #4 while fixing bug 349304.  Szymon was good with it.  So the remaining issues here are #1 and #2.

The idea is to use more task-oriented language (but still use git terms).

But the problem I see here is that git-status does more than stage (and yes, it does more than status too).  And git-log does more than push.  So I'm inclined to leave #1 and #2 alone for 0.2 because I don't see this as a major improvement, and it is a disruption to those of us who have learned the existing names.  I don't feel strongly about this.  

I'm removing the milestone and unassigning myself.
But Szymon, if you feel strongly about this, can you discuss with Boris and Simon?

Comment 2 John Arthorne

2011-06-15 22:19:07 EDT

I don't think we should change 1 and 2 at this point for 0.2 release. It's true that our "Git Status" page now covers quite a few Git commands and could use a better name. At this point I'm kind of liking the good old Eclipse term, "Synchronize". But, I think it's better at this point to leave it alone, and revisit next release when we might have other design changes.

Comment 3 Szymon Brandys

2011-06-16 04:49:49 EDT

(In reply to comment #2)
> I don't think we should change 1 and 2 at this point for 0.2 release. It's true
> that our "Git Status" page now covers quite a few Git commands and could use a
> better name. At this point I'm kind of liking the good old Eclipse term,
> "Synchronize". But, I think it's better at this point to leave it alone, and
> revisit next release when we might have other design changes.

Yes. I agree this is a post-0.2 thing to discuss.

Comment 4 Szymon Brandys

2011-10-31 09:50:08 EDT

No-one seems to be interested in changing it at this point. People got used to the current wording.