Redmine

Fares Abdullah wrote:

Could we please rename them in the English translation to (for example):
"duplicates" to "has duplicate"
"duplicated by" to "is duplicate of"

Actually, it is exactly the opposite.

Ok, it looks like I've made my own point...

Then could we please rename them in the English translation to (for example):
"duplicates" to "is duplicate of"
"duplicated by" to "has duplicate"

1+

I, as well, have found this to be a general source of confusion. I think the main problem is that the "duplicate" as a concept implies some sort of symmetry -- both copies are identical -- while the relation we are trying to describe in Redmine has directional semantics.

Why not make it something completely different, that cannot be misinterpreted? Say for example "already reported in" for the copy that is redundant, clearly suggesting a precedence for the other issue. Maybe not as concise, but aesthetics is subordinate to comprehension, IMHO.

+1 for clarifying the wording

Documentation about that

duplicates - Links issues so that closing one, will close the other (e.g. closing A will close B)
    For example, if issue B duplicates A:
    - closing B will leave A open
    - closing A will automatically close B

duplicated by - Reciprocal of duplicates
    For example, if issue A is duplicated by issue B:
    - closing B will leave A open
    - closing A will automatically close B

Source: http://www.redmine.org/projects/redmine/wiki/RedmineIssues

+1

+1
Please clarify the wording. I have to look it up in the documentation every single time.

+1

I have to look this up each time as well, very frustrating for our team.

"duplicates" to "is duplicate of"
"duplicated by" to "has duplicate"

+1

+1

Josef Grahn wrote:

I, as well, have found this to be a general source of confusion. I think the main problem is that the "duplicate" as a concept implies some sort of symmetry -- both copies are identical -- while the relation we are trying to describe in Redmine has directional semantics.

Why not make it something completely different, that cannot be misinterpreted? Say for example "already reported in" for the copy that is redundant, clearly suggesting a precedence for the other issue. Maybe not as concise, but aesthetics is subordinate to comprehension, IMHO.

Agree with Josef, I have to google and find this same issue nearly every time to check the definition I come to use this relation because the phrasing doesn't make it clear which way around the relationship is.

I don't think adding "Is" to the beginning really solves the problem. The biggest cause of confusion (for me at least) is "Duplicates" which is very vague. I think the best solution was suggested further up as it clears up both ends of the relation:

"duplicates" to "is duplicate of"
"duplicated by" to "has duplicate"

To me, I can look at these and clearly understand the relation between tickets, which I would not be able to do with the change suggested by note 14.

budo kaiman wrote:

I don't think adding "Is" to the beginning really solves the problem.

Me neither.
In our translation, I used wording that translates about

  label_duplicates: "Primary issue is" 
  label_duplicated_by: "A secondary issue is"