On 25/08/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 02:36:09PM +0200, Steve
Bennett wrote:
On 8/25/06, Tim Starling
<t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
It would save a lot of edit conflicts.
If this is the goal, why not consider allowing true section editing
where editing section A doesn't conflict with an edit to section B?
Could be more work though :)
Color me confused: I thought we'd had *this* for *years*...
We do, sufficient enough. MediaWiki will attempt to merge edits
(simple merging, we're not talking gratuitous hyper-intelligent stuff)
if it can; I would wager that a lot of edit conflicts are avoided in
this step alone. Of course, if it can't, it throws a conflict. And I
expect sometimes something upsets it, and it throws a conflict for the
sheer hell of it. :)
There's quite a bit that could be done in the edit conflict arena,
though. Three-way merging of edits, anyone? A friendlier conflict UI
would be a damn good start, although I have to admit I'm not sure what
I'd call a "friendlier conflict UI"...I'd have to think on it.
One immediate improvement that someone could make is to have MediaWiki
handle in-section conflicts without "breaking out" and showing both
copies of the full text. Current behaviour means that, e.g. two
editors adding comments in a section on a discussion page who cause an
edit conflict will have to battle with the full text of the
page...which, as we all know, can be quite a considerable whack.
Rob Church