> On 23 May 2019, at 11:37, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.morta...@xwiki.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:10 AM Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote:
>>
>> So trying to sum up the discussion to see if we all agree.
>>
>> All the above is in the case of a save conflict:
>>
>> 1. Default behaviour for all users is to try an automatic merge, and to
>> display a window conflict resolution in case of merge conflict. The
>> conflict resolution is an all-or-nothing based, allowing to choose a
>> version over another.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "all-or-nothing" (I guess you just mean that
> you can't choose a line over another)
Yes
> but to be safe I prefer to
> repeat that among the possible choices the user can make in the
> windows there should be the proposed automatic merge.
Not sure what you mean since we agreed so far that option 1 is a bad idea and
thus there’s no automatic “resolution" of conflicts (ie data loss from user
POV). If you mean that the user can choose to discard his own data or choose to
overwrite previous author’s data, then yes, I agree. It’s probably a wording
issue but in this case I don’t consider it to be an “automatic merge” since
there’s no merge and it's not automatic.
Thanks
-Vincent
>
>>
>> 2. There is an option in the user profile to be able to always see the
>> diff in case of save conflict, to accept or not the merge, even when
>> there's no conflict.
>>
>> 3. When a user save with a merge, the notification message displays that
>> it's a merge save. It means that user clicking on "save&view" might miss it.
>>
>> Those are the first three priority points. The following points are
>> important too, but might not be finished in 11.5.
>>
>> 4. If another user saved a document that I'm editing, I have a
>> notification in the editor and I can click on it to see the diff/conflicts
>>
>> 5. The conflict resolution is line-by-line based.
>>
>> WDYT?
>> Simon
>>
>> On 23/05/2019 10:00, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 23 May 2019, at 09:43, Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 23/05/2019 09:31, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>>>>> On 23 May 2019, at 09:25, Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Caty,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 22/05/2019 14:51, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm not sure I agree about this profile option.
>>>>>>> Indeed we want to make things as simple as possible and having conflict
>>>>>>> resolutions can be scary, still, there is no way an user could take this
>>>>>>> decision in advance.
>>>>>>> Users will want to have control over what they do and at least know
>>>>>>> something went wrong. We cannot automatically merge, without any
>>>>>>> warning,
>>>>>>> since users will immediately see that their work was changed. It will be
>>>>>>> reported as a bug (in case they notice it) and they will expect to be
>>>>>>> able
>>>>>>> to recover the work.
>>>>>>> I can't think of a case when an user would not care about the changes
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> the result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let say that a document has 2 sections, and a user is editing section 1,
>>>>>> while the other is editing section 2. The merge should work properly
>>>>>> without any conflict.
>>>>>> I don't really see the point of asking by default the second user if
>>>>>> he's ok to merge his work on section 1 with what has been saved on
>>>>>> section 2.
>>>>>> On the contrary I feel it could be scary for the basic users to see this
>>>>>> kind of message and it decreases the easiness of using XWiki IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also the options are not clear to me: like 2: automatically merge, but
>>>>>>> ask.
>>>>>>> Well is automatically or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's automatic but as you mentioned just after, in case of changes are
>>>>>> made on the same line there is a conflict that needs to be solved.
>>>>>> That's what I meant by "ask in case of merge conflict".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the contrary option 1 was a fully automatic merge, with a predefined
>>>>>> strategy to choose one version over another in case of conflict.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need to ask for resolution only if the changes are on the same line,
>>>>>>> besides this, we should try to automatically merge, but provide the
>>>>>>> info to
>>>>>>> the user that we did that. Instead of the normal Save message, we could
>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>> that we performed a Merged Save. And in the history I would expect to be
>>>>>>> able to see what lines were added by what users, just in case something
>>>>>>> went wrong. We are lucky that we have the Blame view :)
>>>>>>> So not sure we need a configurable option in profile. We just need to
>>>>>>> decide on the 'default' and implement that. We keep adding options that
>>>>>>> only increase the complexity of the product and we never get to test all
>>>>>>> the possible mixes and configurations.
>>>>>>> So what are the use cases when we would need this option in the profile?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I said above I personally don't see the point of always displaying
>>>>>> the merge diff especially for basic users when there's no conflict. Now
>>>>>> I really think that some users would want that, that's why I proposed
>>>>>> the profile option.
>>>>> I agree that option 3 is not great as it gets in the way. Now it could be
>>>>> interesting for the user to know it happened. Maybe some fleeting
>>>>> notifications at the bottom of the screen or some info added to the
>>>>> commit message or some visual info when you’re in edit mode and before
>>>>> you press save.
>>>>
>>>> So in case of "Save&Continue" it's quite easy to change the "Saved"
>>>> notification message by another one. I'm not quite sure how to inform the
>>>> user about the merge if he cliks on "Save&View”.
>>>
>>> By implementing the part below :) ie by providing this info continuously
>>> before he clicks any save button.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ideally I’d like that we poll regularly to see if there have been changes
>>>>> and display some icon if there are with the ability for the current user
>>>>> to click and see the diffs with his version, and if there’s a conflict,
>>>>> that a visible message is displayed on the screen (but without
>>>>> interrupting of his typing).
>>>
>>> More details: when there’s a conflict, clicking the message/button would
>>> show the diff and the conflict.
>>>
>>>>> And when he saves, the merge is done then.
>>>>
>>>> I like the idea, now would that be enough to inform about the performed
>>>> merge? If we go in that direction I'd need some design proposal for the UI
>>>> @Caty :)
>>>
>>> Yes we need to find where to put that information.
>>>
>>> BTW, even better, we should ideally also display the icons of the users who
>>> are editing the same doc and/or who have saved content after the current
>>> user started editing.
>>>
>>> And we already have a design page for this ;) We called it “collaborative
>>> editing”:
>>> https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/CollaborativeEditing
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Caty
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:04 PM Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 22 May 2019, at 10:45, Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm working on the merge on save for the roadmap of 11.5 and I need
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> decision to be taken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The main idea of the merge on save, is to try to merge users work in
>>>>>>>> case of save conflict. Knowing that the merge might led to merge
>>>>>>>> conflict
>>>>>>>> in case of edits on the same places. Those merge conflict can be
>>>>>>>> tackled
>>>>>>>> automatically, but a priority will be then given to one version over
>>>>>>>> another.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I first propose to add an option in user profile, so users would have
>>>>>>>> the possibility to choose between:
>>>>>>>>> 1. Always merge automatically the work, even in case of merge conflict
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don’t understand this part. If there’s a conflict it means it cannot
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> merged… So would it do? Take latest version and overwrite previous
>>>>>>>> version?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. Always merge automatically, but ask what to do in case of merge
>>>>>>>> conflict
>>>>>>>>> 3. Always ask what to do in case of save conflict
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now the question is: what should be the default option?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Certainly not 1! 2 is really the best to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Option 1 looks like a good fit for decreasing the number of clicks to
>>>>>>>> do, but I'm a bit afraid that in case of conflict they would have the
>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>> feeling as before the warning conflict window: i.e. to loose some part
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> their work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>>>>> simon.u...@xwiki.com
>>>>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>>> simon.u...@xwiki.com
>>>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Simon Urli
>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>> simon.u...@xwiki.com
>>>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Simon Urli
>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>> simon.u...@xwiki.com
>> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
