> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Brett Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: > > In version control systems you, as a user, rely on the merge failing to > > highlight areas that need human intervention. In wave we don't want humans > > to have to constantly be involved in handling the real time merge of the > > disparate change streams.
It's not so much that we don't want humans to resolve conflicts, but rather, different humans will resolve conflicts in different ways, which leads to divergence at different sites. Human intervention is not an option! On Aug 8, 10:51 am, Joseph Gentle <[email protected]> wrote: > This is one of the fantastic use cases of having different OT semantics for > different types of data. > > - For code editing, I want the current wave OT algorithm > - For code merging (ie, merge my changes with yours) I want edits on close > regions of the document to create conflict markers. This is not an issue for the OT algorithms at all, but rather, it is an issue of presentation of merged data to the user. If you want to see edits that fall close together, then your OT aware editor should be able to present this to you and help you resolve any logical/ semantic conflicts that you perceive. Cheers, Dan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
