> I think our goal should be to make a good Subversion client, not
> every last feature of the CVS client. I think we should use
> terminology in all areas so that it is clear what Subversion commands
> being run. In the long run, I think this works in our favor as it
> the nice market of Subversion books and other materials relevant to
> we are doing.
I don't think this is trying to provide consistency with CVS. I think
it is trying to provide consistency with other Subclipse menus. You
have "Compare with Base", so "Replace with Base" is a natural thing
to expect as well. Obviously this is the same thing as "Revert", but
that takes an extra mental step and learning. And anyway,
"Base" _is_ a Subversion concept. Making it behave exactly the same way
as Revert probably does make sense, though.
> In general I also do not think it is a good UI idea to offer multiple
> paths to the same functionality. In the long run it is just
On the contrary, different people think in different ways, so providing
multiple paths to the same functionality is good if it supports
mental models. Think about saving a file in MS Word. I can click on
the disk icon. I can hit Control+S. I can go to the File menu and
Save. I prefer keyboad shortcuts. Other people prefer toolbars. Still
others prefer to use the menu. If it's too much effort, catering for
of these increases the number of people who think "Subclipse rocks"
it works the way they want to work.
Just my twopennorth,
Applications Software Team Leader
e: firstname.lastname@example.org / email@example.com
t: +44 131 272 7145
f: +44 131 272 7001
Received on Thu Aug 4 01:11:42 2005