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/linescolo…
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.urli(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23/05/2019 09:31, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>>>> On 23 May 2019, at 09:25, Simon Urli <simon.urli(a)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
<vincent(a)massol.net>
> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 22 May 2019, at 10:45, Simon Urli
<simon.urli(a)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.urli(a)xwiki.com
>>>>>>>> More about us at
http://www.xwiki.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Simon Urli
>>>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>>>> simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
>>>>> More about us at
http://www.xwiki.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> Simon Urli
>>> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
>>> simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
>>> More about us at
http://www.xwiki.com
>>
>
> --
> Simon Urli
> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
> More about us at
http://www.xwiki.com
>
--
Simon Urli
Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
simon.urli(a)xwiki.com
More about us at