On Jan 13, 2012, at 14:04 14, James Harrison wrote: > 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.
That's the rub. There are times when an automatic merge will just not be possible. An extreme example: 1) Users A and B each open the same log. 2) User A completely deletes the contents of said log, adds a bunch of new events, and saves it. 3) User B completely deletes the contents of said log, adds a bunch of *different* (from User A) events, and saves it. How do we merge the two new logs? In this case, the context of the original, common log has been completely lost, so there is no sane way to determine automatically how this 'merge' ought to happen. 'Ask the user' is hence the only viable option. (This, in fact, is exactly what CVS does when it runs into the analogous situation where two different users have made conflicting changes to the same piece of code.) Now, from a UI and workflow perspective, how do we present this to a user? Cheers! |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Chief Developer | | | Paravel Systems | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Threads -- Threat or Menace? | | | | -- chapter heading from | | "The Art of UNIX Programming" | | by Eric Raymond | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| _______________________________________________ Rivendell-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
