On 23/05/2019 12:15, Vincent Massol wrote:
On 23 May 2019, at 11:37, Thomas Mortagne <[email protected]> wrote: On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 11:10 AM Simon Urli <[email protected]> wrote:So trying to sum up the discussion to see if we all agree. All the above is in the case of a save conflict: 1. Default behaviour for all users is to try an automatic merge, and to display a window conflict resolution in case of merge conflict. The conflict resolution is an all-or-nothing based, allowing to choose a version over another.Not sure what you mean by "all-or-nothing" (I guess you just mean that you can't choose a line over another)Yesbut to be safe I prefer to repeat that among the possible choices the user can make in the windows there should be the proposed automatic merge.Not sure what you mean since we agreed so far that option 1 is a bad idea and thus there’s no automatic “resolution" of conflicts (ie data loss from user POV). If you mean that the user can choose to discard his own data or choose to overwrite previous author’s data, then yes, I agree. It’s probably a wording issue but in this case I don’t consider it to be an “automatic merge” since there’s no merge and it's not automatic.
So here by "all or nothing" I meant "not allowing choice conflict by conflict, but only allow choice for the whole document": as specified by Vincent, the choice would be indeed to discard his own data or choose to overwrite previous author's data.
The reason why I propose that is just a calendar reason: I'm afraid that the UI work would be complicated to achieve for 11.5 with the other features. That's why I propose to first concentrate on this, and then to improve with the resolution conflict by conflict.
Simon
Thanks -Vincent2. There is an option in the user profile to be able to always see the diff in case of save conflict, to accept or not the merge, even when there's no conflict. 3. When a user save with a merge, the notification message displays that it's a merge save. It means that user clicking on "save&view" might miss it. 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 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 <[email protected]> wrote: On 23/05/2019 09:31, Vincent Massol wrote:On 23 May 2019, at 09:25, Simon Urli <[email protected]> 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 -VincentSimonWDYT? Thanks -VincentSimonThanks, 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 somedecision to be taken.The main idea of the merge on save, is to try to merge users work incase 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 havethe possibility to choose between:1. Always merge automatically the work, even in case of merge conflictI 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 mergeconflict3. 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 -VincentOption 1 looks like a good fit for decreasing the number of clicks todo, 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-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS [email protected] More about us at http://www.xwiki.com-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS [email protected] More about us at http://www.xwiki.com-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS [email protected] More about us at http://www.xwiki.com-- Thomas Mortagne
-- Simon Urli Software Engineer at XWiki SAS [email protected] More about us at http://www.xwiki.com
