Closed
Bug 70039
Opened 23 years ago
Closed 23 years ago
Mid-air collision page confusing, users think comments will be lost
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Bugzilla-General, defect)
Bugzilla
Bugzilla-General
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.12
People
(Reporter: brendan, Assigned: Chris.Yeh)
Details
In any event, the warning is unclear to many, many people (paraphrasing: "this will cause all changes to be lost, except for changes to the long description" -- what's the "long description"?). But if bugzilla can figure out that only comments are colliding, there is no data loss, and no need for user intervention. The comments should be added, in whatever order makes sense (server post reception time order, probably). This is an easy change, I hope; it shouldn't wait for a 3.0 rewrite. People right now are wasting time going Back and copying and pasting their comments (which is fraught with peril, given C&P bugs; in fact, Mozilla doesn't alway restore saved textarea data, making for even more unnecessary real data loss, all to avoid bogus data non-loss that bugzilla makes users fret about). /be
Updated•23 years ago
|
Whiteboard: 2.16
Comment 1•23 years ago
|
||
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 31117 ***
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Reporter | ||
Comment 2•23 years ago
|
||
Permit me to morph this bug to a short-term-fixable problem I cited in the first paragraph of my initial comment: In any event, the warning is unclear to many, many people (paraphrasing: "this will cause all changes to be lost, except for changes to the long description" -- what's the "long description"?). Can we please have a clearer warning, so jst (for instance) doesn't think he'll blow away any other comment by submitting his anyway (when he's interacting with the mid-air collision page)? /be
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: DUPLICATE → ---
Summary: Mid-air collision unnecessary if comments only are colliding → Mid-air collision page confusing, users think comments will be lost
Comment 3•23 years ago
|
||
How's this sound? Was: "This will cause all of the above changes to be overwritten, except for the changes to the description" Proposed: "This will cause all of the above changes to be overwritten, except for the additional comments."
Assignee: tara → dave
Status: REOPENED → NEW
Comment 4•23 years ago
|
||
I think this has been proposed before (somewhere), and was knocked back by Terry. The logic is comments might be repeated, so it's useful to be able to read the previous comment. In this case I'm inclined to agree. I'm not sure why you'd ever have to press back in this case, but I agree that in general midair collisions should be possible to resolve without ever pressing back. I think mpt mentioned doing something about this on a bug somewhere.
Comment 5•23 years ago
|
||
Hmm, I should read through reports more thoroughly.
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•23 years ago
|
||
Dave: that sounds better. Even better would be to invert the comma-separated clauses, or somehow give primacy to the exception. /be
QA Contact: matty
Comment 7•23 years ago
|
||
Nominating for 2.12 since this is only a small change in wording.
Whiteboard: 2.16 → 2.12
Updated•23 years ago
|
QA Contact: matty
Comment 8•23 years ago
|
||
OK, how about "Choosing this will preserve the above person's additional comments, but will overwite any other changes they made with yours."
Updated•23 years ago
|
QA Contact: matty
Comment 9•23 years ago
|
||
nuking matty to test something.
Comment 10•23 years ago
|
||
setting qa contact form element sets qa contact in the db to 0 (not to the userid of the bogus user with blank login id.)
QA Contact: matty
Reporter | ||
Comment 11•23 years ago
|
||
Sorry I didn't hack up a better sentence, myself -- now I'm gonna give a thumbs up to Dave's revision, with a little nit-picking: "Choosing this will preserve the above person's additional comments, but will overwrite any other changes they made with yours." Change "they" to "he or she", or perhaps "the above person". Or (getting inspired) how about this: "Clicking this button will preserve the colliding Additional Comments, but will overwite any other changes not also made by you." ? Note capitalization -- maybe Additional Comments should also be italicized to match how it appears in show_bug.cgi's output. /be
Comment 12•23 years ago
|
||
moving to real milestones...
Whiteboard: 2.12
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.12
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•23 years ago
|
||
Dave Miller's version: "Choosing this will preserve the above person's additional comments, but will overwite any other changes they made with yours." Is probably the closest thing to what happens without starting to get into a very long description about individual Bugzilla fields. I vote for the above.
Reporter | ||
Comment 14•23 years ago
|
||
English nits: "this" is a vague pronoun, which is why I fumbled for "this button" (with "Clicking" rather than "Choosing" -- not sure what's best), and "they" is plural while "above person" is singular. Here's another try that avoids those problems: "Clicking this button will preserve the above person's additional comments, but will overwite any other changes made by that user with yours." /be
Comment 15•23 years ago
|
||
Let's go with that. This isn't worth arguing over. Gerv
Reporter | ||
Comment 16•23 years ago
|
||
endico found the "with yours" at the end of Dave's proposal and my counters to be clunky and unnecessary, so if you want to lop those two words off the end, we'll thank you. /be
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•23 years ago
|
||
checked in fix. instead of "that user" or 'above user' which are truly hideous constructs, why not just put the name of that user in the sentence? Clicking this button will preserve cyeh@bluemartini.com's additional comments, but will overwite any other changes made by cyeh@bluemartini.com.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago → 23 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 19•23 years ago
|
||
Here i go, diving into the nitpickfest. Don't want the rest of you to have all the fun. Clicking this button will preserve the comments made by cyeh@bluemartini.com, but will overwite any other changes made at that time.
Comment 20•23 years ago
|
||
Reopening. landfill currently says: "ou have the following choices: [Submit my changes anyway] This will cause all of the above changes to be overwritten, except for the changes to the description." Gerv
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Assignee | ||
Comment 21•23 years ago
|
||
please re-verify on landfill
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago → 23 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 22•23 years ago
|
||
He's right, your patch is missing. It still has the old text.
Assignee | ||
Comment 23•23 years ago
|
||
try again
Comment 24•23 years ago
|
||
Moving closed bugs to Bugzilla product
Component: Bugzilla → Bugzilla-General
Product: Webtools → Bugzilla
Version: other → unspecified
Updated•11 years ago
|
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•