New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

"Force Write" is a scary name for a plugin. #1938

Closed
quequotion opened this Issue May 12, 2016 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@quequotion

quequotion commented May 12, 2016

I'm not reporting a bug about quodlibet or the plugin's fuctionality, just this string:

http://postimg.org/image/dyby69nsx/

The description sounds like overwrite to me, while force write has the connotation that files will be written even in case of error.

Unless that is actually the case (quodlibet forces a write-to-disk operation disregarding failure), "Overwrite" (quodlibet writes to files the traditional way, disregarding only that they already exist) sounds better to me.

@lazka

This comment has been minimized.

Member

lazka commented May 12, 2016

It just writes the tags as if a tag was changed in the editor.

@lazka lazka added the enhancement label May 12, 2016

@declension declension added the plugins label May 13, 2016

@declension

This comment has been minimized.

Member

declension commented May 13, 2016

Yeah, I see what the OP is saying. Perhaps flush or synchroni(s|z)e would convey the intention better, but they're not exactly user friendly either...

@quequotion

This comment has been minimized.

quequotion commented May 14, 2016

I'd go with synchronize of the two; flush (dump data to disk) is sort of jargon in this sense and could be misinterpreted. Synchronize has an en-* problem; overwrite feels somewhat jargon as well.

thesaurus:
transcribe, overtype, crush, run over

On top of this, I don't think end-users {want to be, are} aware that tags are written separately to the database and (not) to the files to begin with while I understand the need to default to not risking people's files--writes are vulnerable, even if the plugin doesn't have bugs.

@CreamyCookie

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

CreamyCookie commented May 14, 2016

I would rather be more verbose and name it something like "Write tags to files" or "Update tags in files".

@quequotion

This comment has been minimized.

quequotion commented May 15, 2016

Cookie's idea has the best ring to it. "Write tags to files" is very clear, and not at all scary.

@declension

This comment has been minimized.

Member

declension commented May 16, 2016

+1 for Update tags in files - and prefer it to write as it indicates the repeatable nature of the action a bit better IMO.

@lazka

This comment has been minimized.

Member

lazka commented May 30, 2016

Sounds good.

@declension declension closed this in 84640c0 Jul 4, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment