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
