On 13/01/2012 18:55, Cowboy wrote: > On Friday 13 January 2012 01:34:08 pm James Harrison wrote: >> Are there >> any workflows which would be broken by making this the default >> behaviour, > OK, I want to do this, and then that, then the other thing. > Oh, wait, I didn't really want to do that, so I reload without save, > getting back to where I started. > That's what you've broken. Ah, yeah, okay. > >> or do I need to look at making this a configurable option? > I ( as long time readers know ) *always* vote for configurable, > preferably by admin. > >> I >> can't immediately think of any issues this could cause and suspect that >> this would actually be a nice change for everyone in terms of ease of >> use in any case. > This is usually the kind of thing that causes unintended consequences > to become manifest with catastrophic results, for someone. > Such is *why* I always vote configurable. > > Frankly, it seems a better behaviour would be to check before > saving that what was loaded still matches what would be loaded now. > If different, someone else changed something that may conflict. > Toss up a warning. > If no changes have appeared, then lock, save, unlock. > I think that would be a perfect solution, yeah, assuming you can effectively merge the changes, warn the user that you've done so, and let them review the resulting log post-merge.
If that's doable, then we'd end up with logs that can be collaboratively edited without loss of data while not affecting any existing workflows, which would be great James _______________________________________________ Rivendell-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
