> On 23 May 2019, at 10:00, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> 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
It needs some refresh from Caty since we changed the buttons for ex but it’s a
start.
Thanks
-Vincent
>
> 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
