Edit Sequence By Two Individuals | At Least One Edits in Raw Edits@ | Both Edit in WYSIWYG | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Different Paragraphs | Same Paragraph | Different Paragraphs | Same Paragraph | |
Person 1 Edits Person 2 Edits Person 2 Saves Person 1 Saves |
Merges Perfectly | Paragraph results in Conflict Paragraphs
|
1st Persons paragraph results in Conflict Paragraphs
|
Paragraph results in Conflict Paragraphs
|
Person 1 Edits Person 2 Edits Person 1 Saves Person 2 Saves |
Strikeouts in Both Paragraphs | Strikeouts in Paragraph | Strikeouts in Both Paragraphs | Strikeouts in Paragraph |
<ins>=/=<del>
tags to contain eg. a title= attribute that would help identify a chunk of text as being associated with a a user at a particular time.
-- PaulHarvey - 30 Apr 2010
Yeah, I've often thought how nice it would be to have a proper conflict resolution UI.
Add a FeatureProposal (see FeatureRequest)
-- CrawfordCurrie - 08 Jul 2010
partition the report into separate topics, and then use INCLUDEIn case it's not grokked by current/future readers, Sven's suggestion actually becomes a lot more usable in combination with EditChapterPlugin. If the editors don't edit the entire topic but instead used the edit icon that EditChapterPlugin produces beside the header/section titles, you can edit included content from the including document without even being aware that's what you're doing if you fail to notice the URL. So putting it another way, everyone starts their edits from the same topic but in fact are seemlessly redirected to editing separate topics which you've included into the main topic. Now if two editors edit the same paragraph you're still in a merge scenario. You point out that merges currently are more successful if editing raw. EditChapterPlugin opens a raw edit session, even if WYSIWYG is the enabled default for the site. -- CraigBowers - 13 Jul 2010
Subject | Missing functionality |
Extension | |
Version | Foswiki 1.0.9 |
Status | Needs followup in Tasks |