> On 23 May 2019, at 17:59, Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23/05/2019 17:51, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>> On 23 May 2019, at 17:47, Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23/05/2019 17:37, Vincent Massol wrote:
>>>>> On 23 May 2019, at 17:33, Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23/05/2019 16:00, Ecaterina Moraru (Valica) wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:10 PM Simon Urli <simon.u...@xwiki.com> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't agree about the all-or-nothing, since I would prefer to accept
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> we can, warn on conflicts.
>>>>>> We should show a resolution conflict when the conflict is on the same
>>>>>> line.
>>>>>> Auto-merge the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently I wasn't clear about my "all or nothing" feature. For me it
>>>>> only concern the resolution of the merge conflicts, but the choice made
>>>>> apply to ALL conflict of the document. That's what I meant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't like the option in the profile. IMO we should decide on the
>>>>>> behavior and apply it for all users. Edit is a core feature, conflicts
>>>>>> again are part of this kind of interaction.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you'd go with a -1 for this option?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> On "Save&View" we can increase the timeout for the notification.
>>>>>> The notification could mention also the magnitude: "Saved. Auto-merged 10
>>>>>> conflicts."
>>>>>> If cannot save, show the conflict modal.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you quantify this magnitude? The number of versions between the
>>>>> two saves? What about minor/major versions? It looks a bit fuzzy to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> About increasing the notif timeout in case of Save&View I'm not
>>>>> convinced: you're suppose to be immediately redirected to the view page
>>>>> in case of Save&View, so making the user wait on a notif doesn't look
>>>>> very nice.
>>>> I don’t understand why we’d need this at all since if we agree with the
>>>> poll it’s not needed.
>>>
>>> First I'm not sure the presence of the poll would be enough: you can
>>> imagine that the poll would be done just before the user clicks on save so
>>> he won't see it.
>>> And more importantly as I mentionned the poll won't be done immediately. We
>>> might have it in another release. So I'd prefer if we have a backup plan.
>> ok makes sense. I’m asking because your plan didn’t mention the different
>> steps and what you propose to do when and you dropped this polling idea from
>> your list of items :)
>
> It was point 4 of https://markmail.org/message/wkot52soi6vnabvo
ok my bad then. I missed it or misunderstood it for something else.
Thanks
-Vincent
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>>>> Thanks
>>>> -Vincent
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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/linescolor.png
>>>>>> 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.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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 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
>
> --
> Simon Urli
> Software Engineer at XWiki SAS
> simon.u...@xwiki.com
> More about us at http://www.xwiki.com