[Pulp-dev] Terms: unassociate vs. disassociate

[Kodiak Firesmith]

As an end-user I agree with the add/remove lexicon being more clear to
users, if not more technically accurate.  Perhaps it was meant to convey
the intrinsic dedupe quality of Pulp, but I think that could still be made
clear.

 - Kodiak

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com> wrote:

> During the last pulp3 MVP review, a terminology question was raised
> regarding "associating" content with a
> repository.  And more specifically "unassociating" vs "disassociate"
> content.  I took an action item to define
> those terms in the Glossary section of the MVP wiki[1] which I did.  I
> added definitions along with a brief
> definition of a Repository.  After doing so, it occurred to me that given
> a repository is a collection of
> content, we may want to drop the associate, unassociate|disassociate
> terminology and just go with what we
> really mean.
>
> "Associate" replaced with "Add content to a repository".
>
> and
>
> "Unassociate"|"Disassociate" replaced with "Removing content from a
> repository".
>
>
> An example use case would read:
>
> "As a user, I want to add content to a repository."
>
>
> These terms come from the first days of pulp and I understand the original
> intent to distinguish between
> creating new content and adding to a repository.  I'm just thinking the
> distinction may be obvious and
> intuitive and additional terms (that need explanation) are not necessary.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
> [1] https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp_3_Minimum_Viable_Product
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170522/3406ce22/attachment.htm>