> On 23 May 2019, at 17:33, Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23/05/2019 16:00, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) wrote:
>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:10 PM 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.
>>>
>> I don't agree about the all-or-nothing, since I would prefer to accept what
>> we can, warn on conflicts.
>> We should show a resolution conflict when the conflict is on the same line.
>> Auto-merge the rest.
>
> Apparently I wasn't clear about my "all or nothing" feature. For me it only
> concern the resolution of the merge conflicts, but the choice made apply to
> ALL conflict of the document. That's what I meant.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> I don't like the option in the profile. IMO we should decide on the
>> behavior and apply it for all users. Edit is a core feature, conflicts
>> again are part of this kind of interaction.
>
> So you'd go with a -1 for this option?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> On "Save&View" we can increase the timeout for the notification.
>> The notification could mention also the magnitude: "Saved. Auto-merged 10
>> conflicts."
>> If cannot save, show the conflict modal.
>
> How would you quantify this magnitude? The number of versions between the two
> saves? What about minor/major versions? It looks a bit fuzzy to me.
>
> About increasing the notif timeout in case of Save&View I'm not convinced:
> you're suppose to be immediately redirected to the view page in case of
> Save&View, so making the user wait on a notif doesn't look very nice.
I don’t understand why we’d need this at all since if we agree with the poll
it’s not needed.
Thanks
-Vincent
>
> Simon
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> This mockup might not help, but is something I had in mind that I want to
>> share:
>> https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/EditConflict/linescolor.png
>> Ideally I would like to see real time, if not the exact changes, but at
>> least the lines affected by the current editor.
>> Thanks,
>> Caty
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>
> --
> Simon Urli
> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> simon.u...@xwiki.com
> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
