> 1.) User is notified of conflict. Must call/IM/email other user to > discuss their changes to make a decision. User makes the > choice to keep his or other user's work only. > > 3.) User is notified of conflict. The other user wins. The only > option is to copy their work to somewhere and "check out" the new > version of the page to start over.
I'll be implementing at least (3) and then probably extending it to (1) unless I get busy or bored. > 2.) User is notified of conflict. System lets him review the other > user's changes so that he can make the determination of what to > save/delete without needing to consult the other user. This > could also > let him cut/paste from the other users work to manually merge the > changes. (If you really want to get geeky, provide a diff view). This would be best, but I'm throwing it into the too hard basket. If a page was just a big text field, this would be fairly straightforward, but when there's multiple fields and the possibility of adding new fields with extensions this is way beyond anything I care to think about. > All this assumes that we aren't going down the road of: User > can't even open the page because user B has that page locked (opened). That's really not possible over http (well, possible, but not reliably so). Dan. _______________________________________________ Radiant mailing list Post: [email protected] Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
