On Sat, 2002-05-18 at 21:26, Tomas Frydrych wrote: > > I assume this includes some fancy conflict handling. Go back to my > > example, and suppose you are faced with > > > > OpenOffice rocks on toads. (revision 4) > > > > Now, if you only accept 4's revisions, should the result be: > > > > OpenOffice rocks on toads. > > > > or > > > > OpenOffice rocks on toast. > > without the nesting the text after the 4th editor's changes would > look > > <r -2,-4>Abi</><r -1,-4>w</><r +1,-4>W</> > <r -4>ord</><r+4>OpenOffice</> rocks on > <r -3>toast</><r+3>toads</>. > > by accepting the 4 revision _alone_ you would get > > OpenOffice rocks on <r -3>toast</><r+3>toads</>. >
Yes, but that isn't what I meant. It's what I said, but never mind that. I meant "accept 4, reject everyone else". I'm not sure what the answer should be here, which is why I suggested we start by only allowing global acceptance or rejection of revisions up to a certain reviser (so, 1-3, 1-4, or 1-5, but not 3-6). (And if view allows single revision numbers to be chosen, what does 4's revision look like, without anyone else's changes?) > > > Even worse, how do you accept only 5's revisions? 5 has over-written > > lots of changes made by earlier revisers. You aren't either accepting > > or rejecting those revisions, so they should still be available in the > > document. > > Not really, in case where several different views on a single piece of > text are expressed by several editor by accepting on of them you > are automatically rejecting the rest. > You shouldn't be, I think. For example, suppose I want to accept five's revisions and then, after further investigation, six's. Accept and reject shouldn't, if possible, have to be done all at once. If we can't come up with a logic for this, then non-sequential revision acceptances should automatically purge all other marks in the document, and warn you of such. These are screw cases, of course, but I would prefer it if the program didn't assume that I was always going to work in a non-screw way. > > Also, we will need a good UI distinction between rejecting a revision, > > and stetting a revision. Stetting a revision is itself a (new) > > revision, while rejecting a revision removes that revision from the > > document. > > The main difference would be that you can only accept/reject an > individual revision when "mark revisions while editing" is turned off, > and by doing so, you turn it into ordinary text. On the other hand > you can only stet a revision while "mark revisions while editing" is > turned on. OK, that should be clear enough. Thanks. Basically, I think your scheme will work just fine for 90% or more of all uses of revision marks. I'd just like to have it work for all possible uses. -- David Chart
