On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 04:46:19PM -0400, Nirmal Govind wrote: > Well, I will try to explain my logic (whether it will make any logical sense > after this or not, I do not know.. :-)) .. if I'm trying to collaborate > with someone and I'm making changes to text that already exists, I would > like them to be tracked since otherwise finding these minor corrections can > be a pain for the other person.. however, if I'm adding a whole new > section, then it will be quite obvious that a new section has been added.. > > What I currently do is to go through a merge changes dialog and accept the > change that the new section has been added before sending it out. However, > there's a drawback to this - if I make any changes to this new section > after merging the changes (and before sending it out), I now have to merge > changes again before sending it out to the other person.. you see where I'm > going??
No, I don't. I see no flaw in this supposed drawback, that's exactly how it should work. If somebody wants to make changes to a document, then it's a presupposition that they accept what's already there (hence they choose Accept Change, and then add their changes on top). I do not think it's worth while to allow the user to corrupt state by adding, removing or changing things without it being marked as such. Furthermore, it complicates the code. regards john -- Khendon's Law: If the same point is made twice by the same person, the thread is over.
