Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 12:36:57 +0100
From: Stefan Sperling <stsp@elego.de>
To: Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel@gmail.com>
Cc: Subversion Development <dev@subversion.apache.org>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1780191 -
 /subversion/site/publish/docs/release-notes/1.10.html
Message-ID: <20170207113657.GD74872@ted.stsp.name>
Mail-Followup-To: Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel@gmail.com>,
	Subversion Development <dev@subversion.apache.org>
References: <20170125144104.4AE273A0026@svn01-us-west.apache.org>
 <CAB84uBU7kFGehgVHQmd2uGVuN4s8gSbt6KdhbO9ONk4ce65atw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAB84uBU7kFGehgVHQmd2uGVuN4s8gSbt6KdhbO9ONk4ce65atw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01)
archived-at: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 11:37:14 -0000

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:25:09PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> I've been looking at the table in the release notes (in my browser,
> not the textual diff, but replying on this commit to have some context
> -- the "kinds of versioned items" column is already gone btw).
> 
> I think it would be easier to understand for users if we changed the
> order of the columns, to describe it like a user encountering the tree
> conflict would experience it (at least, the way I experience it :-),
> which is:
> 
> 1) What's my local situation (local change)
> 2) What operation did I do (operation)
> 3) What's the incoming change
> 4) Resolution options
> 
> The grouping between some things would then change as well.
> 
> So that would be:
> 
>   <tr>
>     <th>local change</th>
>     <th>operation</th>
>     <th>incoming change</th>
>     <th>resolution options</th>
>   </tr>
> 
> In the first column there would be 4 possibilities right now, if we
> shuffle the table around: "move an item", "add an item", "any change
> inside a directory", "edit file" (or maybe these should be set in past
> tense "edited file", "moved item", ... , because the user did them
> already?). BTW: this makes me wonder, why no "deleted an item" for
> local change?
> 
> I'm willing to do this shuffling if we agree, and if noone else does
> it first :-).

Yes, this makes sense.
Please just go ahead. I'd be happy to see you make any edits you wish to make.
Let me know when you're done and I'll take a look at the result.

The visual representation of this table is important, so having something
to look at is better than discussing abstract ideas, I think :)