On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:33 PM 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. > Here it was the confusion, since in my mind, I though we were going line by line. You said that in the first version we won't have this, but ideal implementation it should go like that (and even at the word / character level for realtime-editing). > > > > > >> > >> 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? > We should add a new configuration only if it's needed. Again, I think we are introducing a lot of things (parent/child relation, accessibility options, etc.) that we never test. We don't reach a conclusion by ourselves, so trying to make everyone happy, we are just increasing the complexity of selection for the user and for the testers. > > > >> > >> 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. > The magnitude I had in mind applied for the line by line case. If you look at the image https://design.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Proposal/EditConflict/linescolor.png , 3 lines were successfully merged, while having conflict on 1 line. So we were tacking about different things. > > 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. > The idea was to redirect the user as soon as possible in the View mode, just display the bottom page notification a bit longer (or add a notification display for the View step). Thanks, Caty > > 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 >
