You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It would very helpful we could process the automatically merged info separately from the conflicts.
Either automatically as a separate upload, which would not need to wait for the conflict to be solved. Then one could just discard the remaining changes that cause the conflict. This also has the advantage that info gets in as fast as possible. (needs a 'stop-workflow button)
Or a button in the editor in addition to 'accept all', 'reject all': 'ignore all' which would process the non conflicting information and ignore the rest.
There might be other solutions to the general problem that:
Context
Many update conflicts esp. for authors are due to errors in the incoming metadata.
So all we want is to keep the existing metadata (+ stuff that was silently merged automatically).
In the current system you have to spend a lot of time to re-engineer the record to the state it was in before the merge.
If you spend a lot of time on improving the record, you see a reason to do it.
Psychologically it is really bad if you have to spend a lot of time to keep the status quo.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It would very helpful we could process the automatically merged info separately from the conflicts.
Either automatically as a separate upload, which would not need to wait for the conflict to be solved. Then one could just discard the remaining changes that cause the conflict. This also has the advantage that info gets in as fast as possible. (needs a 'stop-workflow button)
Or a button in the editor in addition to 'accept all', 'reject all': 'ignore all' which would process the non conflicting information and ignore the rest.
There might be other solutions to the general problem that:
Context
Many update conflicts esp. for authors are due to errors in the incoming metadata.
So all we want is to keep the existing metadata (+ stuff that was silently merged automatically).
In the current system you have to spend a lot of time to re-engineer the record to the state it was in before the merge.
If you spend a lot of time on improving the record, you see a reason to do it.
Psychologically it is really bad if you have to spend a lot of time to keep the status quo.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: