From: David Chart (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 18 2002 - 17:30:10 EDT
On Sat, 2002-05-18 at 21:26, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
> > I assume this includes some fancy conflict handling. Go back to my
> > example, and suppose you are faced with
> > OpenOffice rocks on toads. (revision 4)
> > Now, if you only accept 4's revisions, should the result be:
> > OpenOffice rocks on toads.
> > or
> > OpenOffice rocks on toast.
> without the nesting the text after the 4th editor's changes would
> <r -2,-4>Abi</><r -1,-4>w</><r +1,-4>W</>
> <r -4>ord</><r+4>OpenOffice</> rocks on
> <r -3>toast</><r+3>toads</>.
> by accepting the 4 revision _alone_ you would get
> OpenOffice rocks on <r -3>toast</><r+3>toads</>.
Yes, but that isn't what I meant. It's what I said, but never mind that.
I meant "accept 4, reject everyone else". I'm not sure what the answer
should be here, which is why I suggested we start by only allowing
global acceptance or rejection of revisions up to a certain reviser (so,
1-3, 1-4, or 1-5, but not 3-6). (And if view allows single revision
numbers to be chosen, what does 4's revision look like, without anyone
> > Even worse, how do you accept only 5's revisions? 5 has over-written
> > lots of changes made by earlier revisers. You aren't either accepting
> > or rejecting those revisions, so they should still be available in the
> > document.
> Not really, in case where several different views on a single piece of
> text are expressed by several editor by accepting on of them you
> are automatically rejecting the rest.
You shouldn't be, I think. For example, suppose I want to accept five's
revisions and then, after further investigation, six's. Accept and
reject shouldn't, if possible, have to be done all at once. If we can't
come up with a logic for this, then non-sequential revision acceptances
should automatically purge all other marks in the document, and warn you
These are screw cases, of course, but I would prefer it if the program
didn't assume that I was always going to work in a non-screw way.
> > Also, we will need a good UI distinction between rejecting a revision,
> > and stetting a revision. Stetting a revision is itself a (new)
> > revision, while rejecting a revision removes that revision from the
> > document.
> The main difference would be that you can only accept/reject an
> individual revision when "mark revisions while editing" is turned off,
> and by doing so, you turn it into ordinary text. On the other hand
> you can only stet a revision while "mark revisions while editing" is
> turned on.
OK, that should be clear enough. Thanks.
Basically, I think your scheme will work just fine for 90% or more of
all uses of revision marks. I'd just like to have it work for all
-- David Chart
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 18 2002 - 17:34:12 EDT