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
