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.
Also the options are not clear to me: like 2: automatically merge, but ask. Well is automatically or not? 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? Thanks, Caty On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:04 PM Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > > On 22 May 2019, at 10:45, Simon Urli <[email protected]> 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 > > [email protected] > > More about us at http://www.xwiki.com > >
