Hi Narayan, *,
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Narayan Aras <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
close, but missed...
1. When I edited the pages, often the editor would not work where the cursor is, but 2-3
character away. [...]
Again this is wrong, Even as Publisher (and as Administrator as well),
you have the option to either bypass the workflow by saving and
publishing, or doing it in the two-step process.
I already have the publishing rights. So I can save OR publish it myself.
No, you can do save AND publish or only save, there is no "or" -
publishing without saving is a no-op.
And just because you have publishing rights doesn't mean you have to
publish right away.
In both conditions, the diff should be available straightaway.
Clearly, the GUI is not intuitive.
You have the diff readily available, using the version history in the
This is not different from having diffs in wiki history or in version
control frontends. You pick two "revisions" and see the diff.
I do know about the two-stage and three-stage processes.
So then you know that you can leave remarks, etc on the workflow tab
where you see the changes.
But then there is the third possibility of multiple authors working on the same page.
Each saves the page and leaves it for the other. When the next author comes in, he has to check
the previous changes and then continue.
Note that unless all authors are happy, we will not publish the page.
This workflow is a frequently encountered scenario.
Well, then there needs to be communication between the authors anyway.
Either the change/request messages are enough, or they are lacking, in
that case the editor should be asked to provide more specific
descriptions of his/her changes.
Again if in doubt you can always use the version history to compare
the changes, if the cummulative view on the workflow tab is not
I.e. save, then request publication, as an editor would have to do.
You can do this as publisher as well. Then you got the Workflow tab
that shows the changes and has the controls to add a comment, to
accept or reject the request.
This is unnecessarily complicated.
I don't think so - the workflow tab is the initial view when a request
is pending anyway, so when that other editor visits the page, then
he/she will see the changes right away and can comment on them and/or
reject them, add his/her own changes and resubmit for publication.
In a peer-level multiple author scenario, the subsequent author should not be accepting or
rejecting what is done by the previous author(s).
They don't have to - they can just add more changes.
He should just make his own changes and save.
So where's the problem?
Then the GUI should be able to show any version vs any other diff.
Well: DId you even try what you describe? Seems to me that you're
complaining wihtout having tried it.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy