On Sep 18, 2005, at 3:56 PM, Avi Bryant wrote:

> Sure.  Daniel's currently tweaking MC's merge behavior to be more  
> like what Bert's MCConfigurations do, to make it a better default  
> choice: if the local version is an unmodified ancestor or  
> descendant of the version you're merging in, then there's no need  
> to treat it as anything but a load.  Given that, I would suggest  
> changing the names for the two operations to "Revert" and  
> "Upgrade", which are hopefully more self-explanatory.

Hang on now. I don't think we want to be quick to change the names of  
things.

The names "load" and "merge" were carefully chosen, have well defined  
meanings, and have been in use for several years now in the Squeak  
community. They also match the terms used in the wider Smalltalk and  
(to some extent) source control communities. Even if we can convert  
certain merges into loads, that's an optimization. We needn't change  
the UI to accommodate it.

On the other hand, it's not clear to me that calling them "revert"  
and "upgrade" makes these operations any easier to understand. This  
is particularly so since "revert" and "upgrade" have their own  
meanings. If MC users are having trouble with these basic operations  
we need to improve the balloon help, point people to the  
documentation, answer questions etc.

Colin