https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=980
Nemo <federicol...@tiscali.it> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|Low |Normal CC| |federicol...@tiscali.it Summary|edit conflict handling |Automatical merge of |should offer *partial* |conflicting non-section |merges where a full merge |edits to different sections |is impossible | --- Comment #2 from Nemo <federicol...@tiscali.it> --- (In reply to comment #0) > It should be easy to merge differences when two different sections were > edited, > and not too much harder when two different paragraphs in the same section > were > edited (this assumes that neither of the two concurrent edits rearranged > sections or paragraphs). So this bug is about edits to different sections... > For changes to different sentences within the same > paragaph, it's probably possible to do an automatic merge, but probably not > advisable; however, we'd still want an algorithm to shrink the set of > contiguous > sentences or words forming the <MERGE-CONFLICT> to the smallest acceptable > length. > > The merger of the rearrangement or sections or paragraphs is probably > something > we'd probably have to leave as an entirely manual process. ...and all the rest is no good. (In reply to comment #1) > As of version 1.3.0 (I think; a while ago, anyway) the software *does* > silently > merge many edit conflicts. The conflict screen now only comes up where a > complete automatic merger is not possible. So the original summary of this bug, "CVS/SVN like merging for concurrent edits" or "edit conflict handling should offer *partial* merges where a full merge is impossible", is a WORKSFORME, and per above I'm changing it to "Automatical merge of conflicting non-section edits to different sections". > [...] Perhaps it would be better to just say "the software has merged > some of your changes into the version shown in the upper box, but was unable > to > do so for others ..." Not needed: conflicts are suppressed/merged silently when possible (cf. bug 28720). > and then have the same screen as usual, but with the > upper > textarea (currently "the current text of the article") already containing > those > changes which could be automatically merged. +1 > The diff would also show only > those > un-merged changes (i.e. it would be a diff between the content in the two > textareas). Note that this shouldn't mean an automatic extra edit going > through > to do the partial merge, but it would mean that the default text if the user > submitted without changing anything would write the partial merge to the DB > [because the text written is whatever's in the upper textarea]. Right. This would be consistent with normal edit conflict handling. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l