![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
Seriously people,
this is the second time I have lost a great amount of work because the undo functionality of LibreOffice is about limited to one paragraph.
The alternative to make backups every time you change something is just not workable.
Regards,
B.S.
B.S. schreef op 01-06-2016 15:24:
Seriously people,
this is the second time I have lost a great amount of work because the
undo functionality of LibreOffice is about limited to one paragraph.The alternative to make backups every time you change something is
just not workable.
And if you then make another change after trying the undo (which doesn't really work) you will also have lost the redo buffer. I pressed the wrong button for redo. I pressed CTRL-R (Vim shortcut). Bad me, it did a right align, and my redo buffer was thrown out. Not that it mattered so much at this point, that latter point.
But this is just not functional. Not if you expect people to be people and still be able to use the thing.
Seriously people,
this is the second time I have lost a great amount of work because the
undo functionality of LibreOffice is about limited to one paragraph.The alternative to make backups every time you change something is
just not workable.
Are you just ranting? This isn't a question at all.
Feel free to report a concise bug at bugs.libreoffice.org - explain the problem and how you think it should work. I've been using LibreOffice for years and been a contributor for that time period and no one else has come up complaining about this.
FWIW - this is a free open source project, so volunteers tackle issues as they want. There are no guarantees and it's a take it or leave it situation. Of course patches are always welcome (the code is out there to dive right into).
Best,
Joel
If you lose work because of limited undo then there is something wrong with
your method of working.
Anyhow, go into *Options -> LibreOffice -> Memory* and raise the *Undo
number of steps*.
Bo Siltberg schreef op 01-06-2016 19:46:
If you lose work because of limited undo then there is something wrong with
your method of working.
Anyhow, go into *Options -> LibreOffice -> Memory* and raise the *Undo
number of steps*.
I think people have a right to their own way of working, and you don't have a say in that.
You allusion that the feature is unnecessary for anything real not only decides what other people should do or not do, but clearly also states that the ones who have implemented it in the first place, or those who have come before and have created such features for as long as computers exist, must clearly be in the wrong and now you know the real truth, because it doesn't exist in LibreOffice, so that must be right.
Right?
Common sense is clearly defunct here again.
Your argument has the form of "It doesn't exist now, so you don't really need it" as if the past choices of developers are always right, and current complaints, never are.
And your statement really comes down to what they call bigotry, sorry to say so. You basically say that, because some developer has not sought fit to create it, and developers are the authority in all things, and more bright than you and me combined, it must follow that there is then also not a need for it.
This is not logic, but it is dependence on some authority that is always right, no matter what. It is bigotry and depending on and believing in the infallibility of some historical authority much like people believed the Bible was always right and if it wasn't in the bible, it isn't so.
Now you say "It is not in the product, so you don't need it".
Regardless of that fact that pretty much every other product, that are usually not even word processors, always do.
LibreOffice stands alone in this, completely. Speak to me of your common sense, again.
Also there is not actually any such option in the version I use.
I could screenshot it, but yeah, it's not there in 5.1.2, of the Ubuntu version I am using that comes with 16.04.
Regards.
Correct, there are no undo settings in my 5.1.2 from openSUSE, although it is in the help.
steve
Then try 5.0 if you need extensive undo, or simply try to find another way
of writing that does not rely in too much undo. It is clearly not meant for
reverting some hour of work.
Steve Edmonds wrote:
> Correct, there are no undo settings in my 5.1.2 from openSUSE, although
> it is in the help.
> steve
>
> > Also there is not actually any such option in the version I use.
There is an option under Advanced > Expert Configuration > org.openoffice.Office.Common > Undo
The default is 100 steps which should be enough for normal use. But you can increase it if you want.
Well then if you are going to respond like that, I am going to respond in public.
Joel Madero schreef op 01-06-2016 18:13:
I use LibreOffice daily for professional work - your subjective feelings
are irrelevant in this outside of imposing a common sense "duty" (as a
member of the open source world) to report whatever issues you have in a
polite way and then wait patiently for the people with the skills that
you don't have to fix the problems that they confirm. Tens of millions
of users are using the product daily for professional quality work -
you're in the minority.
I wrote a message to Joel Madero in private because I didn't see it fit to write anything more philosophical about the nature of open source development on this list.
I did mention to him that people like him could be held liable in the end for acts they have committed, or didn't commit, such as false advertizing, which this product is doing, like so many others, even if there is not a form of direct contractual agreement in monetary terms, or anything like it, at the present date, the way this system is constructed.
"No warranty" doesn't hold much water in a court of law if it actually violates common principles.
And I hope you do realize, that all of you, developers or not, could be held liable for the work you do, and false advertizing you are a part of, if the false promises you make on websites such as that of this product, come down to costing people a lot of time and money, because you make promises you do not actually live up to.
And I stated these things because a form of reward is often implied in using as well as creating open source products, and "no monetary gain" is not a reality. People do this work and often get rewarded in other forms, often as a form of investment or finding employment later down the line. And I stated that everyone who is using open source material is investing in the future, and the contract is often that something may be free for now, but will yield rewards later down the line, or will even require payment later down the line, because anyone who has made a lot of money based on something free, will feel like paying back on that.
So I feel this "no responsibility" claim is just nonsense to begin with. That is not how life works, and it is not how people work.
If you put something out into the world, then accept responsibility for it. And this is just common sense, but open source people often try to reinvent common sense, and think they can do better than anyone, because in some way they are distancing themselves from corporate people, so they must be superior.
"No liability" or "no warranty" is going to not work out in the end, and you are going to get hurt for it. And this is a promise as well, because you are hurting yourself, and no one else.
Moreover, stating that in some way people (such as me) must be a good 'sheep' and are required to speak politely (as if speaking to superiors) and then "patiently wait" (as if open source is not about active involvement) until others who "do have the skills" see fit to spend their valuable time on issues that they confirm at their sole discretion, basically without anyone else having a say, but moreover, without any requirement to even /listen/ to anyone else outside of their scope, including, basically, all users, I can only currently qualify as extremely arrogant, and downright oppressive. And I feel this user only made these statements because it was done in private, whereas I didn't write my message with privacy in mind.
If that is the picture you want to paint of yourself, fine, but then I am not a part of that, or I am not a part of you.
Moreover, this arrogance mostly results also, of his incorrect assumption that I am not a developer myself, and his condescending tone only results at this point from thinking I have no code development skills in the first place. "Wait until people who do have some skills to see fit to maybe maybe maybe design the feature you want".
"You small man" you might add, and that would then apply to me. Belittling users who have no coding skills in this fashion.... and completely wrong in the first place, as it may be. Oh, you might say, then why don't you say so! You might work for us! Suddenly the tone changes and instead of filing bug reports (however mundane) I would now be required to do that work myself, right?
Free work!!
Oops. Yes, as a user I might be thankful on my knees that these great developers have even seen fit to create the product in the first place, and that I, as an insignificant being, am even allowed to use it, in the first place.
Treated as some kind of worm, or some lowly being.
"Your subjective feelings are irrelevant". Really. What if those subjective feelings might in the end come down to work opportunity and employment opportunity being lost for you, yourself? You are taking a big gamble here man.
Maybe the small fly ends up being something bigger than that.
Funny, some people in positions of authority or power often pose as small people to elicit responses like that. I don't know of many that do. A Bishop in the united states, once attended his own Christmas sermon dressed up as a beggar. After most of those good faith Christians had tried to shoo him out of his own Christmas church, he doffed his attire and proceeded to say that he didn't mean to shame them, but all the same it should provide a lesson as to how people are often judged by appearances, and that perhaps it should not be a right thing to do. Unrelated here, but some C.E.O.'s do the same, I'm sure.
This person says "feel free to report a bug" after saying that no one is going to listen to it anyway.
Since these are just "subjective feelings" anyway, and "millions of users" that you never asked never complained about it to your knowledge.
The question of whether something /should/ work in a certain way, is apparently not important.
And yes, people get fired for such things. However much you may disagree with that, for instance, an employee for the Linux Foundation was pretty much fired after publicly attacking the proposals of a member (or sponsor) organisation. So I would say to watch your words, and do not assume you can know whom you are talking to, or whether something will not bite you in the end.
A more sane and polite approach, yourself, might be advisable. Try to act in a way in which you will never need to apologize, even if you turn out to have been wrong. Try to assume best intents, and try to assume knowledge on the part of the other. Also try to assume competence, in the beginning. Try to assume that what someone is saying, might actually have some merit. You might come much farther in life, if you do so.
And don't risk getting burned for some arrogance popping out in case no one else can hear it, you think, or it is being said to someone who doesn't matter anyway.
And my name, it doesn't matter, but you can find out easily.
And I am someone of complete insignificance, after all.
Or, as dr. Evil liked to say, "The details of my life are inconsequential".
;-).
Regards, B.
Funny enough I almost did the same but out of respect for your choice to keep things private, I chose not to. You've not given the same consideration so:
Heads up to this user - he has zero respect for the community, enjoys wasting everyone time, and wants to use the list as a means to waste everyone's time with a long novel (which I rightfully ignored). He clearly just is using a user support thread for a free and open source project powered by incredible volunteers as a means to complain and whine.
I stand by what I said - the product works for tens of millions of users, I use it daily for professional work, and I have zero will to read a multi-page rant from a verbose user that likes going WAY off topic. He seems to have a lot more time to waste than I do.
Warmest Regards,
Joel
Bo Siltberg schreef op 01-06-2016 21:44:
Then try 5.0 if you need extensive undo, or simply try to find another way
of writing that does not rely in too much undo. It is clearly not meant for
reverting some hour of work.
Why don't you try to stop people from doing what they want in their private time? Oh, you are already doing so.
And maybe you should also try to determine what a feature, that has existed for many years now in many software solutions, in a much greater design and extent, I might add, why don't you try to determine what that feature is meant to be used for, at your sole behest, irrespective of what real people actually want?
Oh, I know you do. What if, if that feature actually had any sane implementation like most applications do have, and which should form at least an example of how it should work, what if that feature did allow or would allow someone to revert hours of work? Would that be a problem to you?
Would it be a problem to you if people actually used it for that? Or is it only a problem that either (a) it means the current system is not really all that great or (b) someone would need to be in agreement with that idea?
I mean in both cases, if there actually was some support for the feature, people might implement it, and you might be wrong about your assumptions. Which I guess, is something you don't want to be all that often. But regardless, it would probably make everyone a lot happier, even though you can perhaps not readily imagine that.
Those 100 undo steps we have today are single character undos. If someone makes more changes, they might amount to 50 characters of backdraft. 50 characters of history. It might not be more than a single line (or sentence).
How can you seriously consider that to be any good?
"Should be fine for most people" as the other person says, is just not reality.
Only if your operations are actually block-level operations, does it make any real sense.
Or if you only want to undo stuff within the space of a minute.
See the undo system already saves entire blocks. It just needs to be augmented for that to also happen, in condensation, for character-level operations, you see.
And most applications have that.
Most actually do.
You are really in the minority here, what that goes, and LibreOffice users themselves are also, in the minority, themselves. Whether you want that or not, and whether you like that or not, as well.
So using the claim of "large user base" or "great experience" as an argument here is really void. "Millions of people are using it and not finding fault". Really, did you ask them.
Did you hold a poll over millions of users over this issue?
Those insignificant beings, did you inquire into their opinions?
Some projects do. NetworkManager recently did, and it was great that they did. They took it very seriously.
I think many projects do not.
Anyway I am writing this with a foot that is about twice its regular size, and I think I need to quit it now.
Regards.
Joel Madero schreef op 01-06-2016 22:10:
choice to keep things private, I chose not to. You've not given the
same consideration so:
That's funny indeed.
Heads up to this user - he has zero respect for the community, enjoys
wasting everyone time, and wants to use the list as a means to waste
everyone's time with a long novel (which I rightfully ignored). He
clearly just is using a user support thread for a free and open source
project powered by incredible volunteers as a means to complain and
whine.
Let's explain a little what those statements mean, because it is easy.
First, you are assuming dreadfully wrong intent with everything I have written. That is usually a way to disqualify contributions when you have no real arguments to do so.
Secondly, I did not send that long novel to everyone, so you are wrong again, and attributing something to me, that I clearly consciously avoided doing in the first place. Great for that.
Secondly again, you are doing that thing: embellish your own position in a way to discredit my own. Not only do you have to state, you feel, to treat my attempts here as lacking any merit, but also that my intent is for them to not have any merit.
So that thing I just asked you to do: to assume good intent, well, let's just say that you are a bit of a hard learner in that sense. Not a problem. But still what happens.
You must discredit my entire person to keep support here from other people on this list.
And at the same time, you must slime with those other people, and state how great you think they are, because I just said that you have rather low regard for them.
We call this "damage control mode". I don't think you are all that good at it, but all the same, it is just what is.
Hence all those smiles, and those "warmest regards". They are just a slight bit insincere, but that doesn't matter, it's the idea or the thought that counts, right?
I stand by what I said - the product works for tens of millions of
users, I use it daily for professional work, and I have zero will to
read a multi-page rant from a verbose user that likes going WAY off
topic. He seems to have a lot more time to waste than I do.
Completely ignoring the topic at hand yourself.
By your logic, because something "works" for millions of people, apparently it works "all the time". Or, similarly or conversely, it never fails to work for them. After all, it is just some blanket statement. A car may work for millions of people too, even if it breaks down every 20 miles. Depends on your definition of "working" doesn't it? Further more, it says nothing about things that might be improved, or things that might be individually lacking. It is just a way of avoiding that subject.
And actually I have no time to waste.... but a good reason why I am doing so regardless ;-). Let's call it being destroyed by some people and having a lacking ability to express myself tersely as a result.
In any case, you have zero will to begin with, and that was my point.
Regards.
Piet van Oostrum schreef op 01-06-2016 21:53:
There is an option under Advanced > Expert Configuration >
org.openoffice.Office.Common > Undo
The default is 100 steps which should be enough for normal use. But
you can increase it if you want.
Oh, by the way, I changed that value to 20000 (thank you for your admission and request here) but after changing or attempting about 200 undo's, now all my text has changed to bold in any new document while not being bolded, or rather, being regular text but still having bold display ;-).
It only happened for the font I was writing in, but apparently I have to reset my config.
Thank you anyway,
but 100 character steps is not enough for normal use for a lot of people and a lot of use cases.
That's really just 100 characters.
My browser box in this webmail has better undo.
Regards.
B.S. schreef op 01-06-2016 22:41:
Regards.
By the way, no one has still not really tackled the question of whether there should be better undo. People are trying to avoid that subject.
People are not giving any reasons for why it shouldn't be there.
People are questioning and criticising the motives for wanting it.
Or questioning whether I really need it (which is that thing Linux people often do).
Or, as the last resort, being in disagreement with the path I have chosen to voice my concerns, which is a public list where everyone can hear it, instead of a bug report that is by its nature, still rather private.
Basically, that's just a way to shut someone up and ensure that the exposure for these words (or those words) would be rather very limited.
Ill intent? Yes it is ill intent and people do it constantly.
A user support list is also a public "face" you might say.
Anyway enough of this. People just don't want the dirty laundry to come out, and so they redirect most or all attempts that indicate that the product might not be perfect.
The website only shines of perfection. Then don't want people to hear a different story, do you?
It's just bureaucracy and I cannot really blame you for it, but it is still what happens.
Negative feedback is not welcomed unless there is immediately a path for achieving the correct result, which would only happen if that person making the request, immediately set out achieving it. In that case it would come across as immediately constructive and speaking well of the product "see, another person wants to get involved!". But in the meantime, when some negativity needs to be uttered without an immediate resolution that will instantly tell a good story about the product again.
Those words are just not welcomed usually and have to be disqualified and discredited with such words as "rant" and "troll" (to your credit you haven't used it) and "is just here to waste everyone's time" (and for no other reason, obviously).
Oh yeah, of course "whine" and "complain" also qualify. To disqualify.
Assuming ill intent? Not really, it's just what happens. It is just the results that you see repeated over and over.
They are not assumptions in advance. They are just repeated observations over a much longer period. And something that gets proven again and again. You may disagree of course.
But the reality is that negative feedback is not welcomed in public, and you may make of that what you want.
Regards and signing out.
Hopefully, really.
That is simply untrue. How about you read what I said. Report the issue as an enhancement request where feedback from the UX team (the ones actually doing the work) will be direct. This is not the place for this hypothetical in the air "what if"..... this is the place for user support (which you got, you slammed, you gave pages of unnecessary waste of time words, etc....).
Bug reports aren't private, they are entirely public - so, to use your name, that is entire BS.
Or in the alternative, go buy another product and then see how far your whining gets with them.
Best,
Joel
Well for starters the projects takes requests for enhancement via the
project Bugzilla portal.
Otherwise, here is my take on LibreOffice Undo/Redo support.
First I would point out that the undo, as moved into Expert configuration
at 5.1, does not default to 100 "characters" but to 100 change actions.
In a rather sophisticated algorithm text being entered is handled at word
boundaries, unless a a misspelling or grammar rule was broken--those are
"undone" character at a time. White space is collapsed and undone as a
single action. Application of style is "undone" in the discrete steps it
was applied--a word at a time or a paragraph or an entire text selection.
So, in point of fact--a default 100 "Undo" action value is actually a
reasonable default. Personally I don't believe there is much benefit to
increasing defaults beyond that as the assertion of "Undo" and "Redo" is
linear
Secondly, should a user feel it is really needed, it is trivial to increase
the value from Expert configuration:
Tools ->Options -> Advanced: Open Expert Configuration and search for "Undo"
the stanza needed is in "org.openoffice.Office.Common", edit to open dialog
and reset the value. A bit higher perhaps 500, but would more than that
provide any useful context for reverting editing?
But there is added overhead in increasing the buffer, so I would suggest it
is best to keep it small.
Third, the Undo/Redo is provided with split button menu listing all change
actions as a stack, while Ctrl+Z/Ctrl+Y are applied sequentially--the split
menu allows selection of multiple steps to Undo/Redo to apply as a block.
Given that, folks should appreciate there is quite a bit of functionality
provided with LibreOffice's Undo/Redo mechanism. Also, it functions pretty
consistently across the document modules
Is it perfect? No, of course not, but I have to challenge OP as to what
additional facet of "Undo/Redo" is missing, or requires improvement?
Personally I can envision a mechanism of incremental document saves and
linked to the auto-save settings.
Where now--we can *only* choose to abandon all changes by quitting the
document. With an incremental save capability, if I wanted to back up
10-minutes I'd restore the edit session to that document state. And I would
assume it could be extended to be able to split out a new document based on
the incremental save--while continuing with current edits.
Stuart
Hi B. S.
I am simply a user of LibreOffice, not a developer.
The tone of the original post on this thread was rather brusk. How do you envision undo to function as opposed to how it currently functions (mechanisms please -- not just results)? How should a block of changes to be undone be defined? This level of discourse was lacking in what was taken to be a rant. Vinegar was there but honey was not.
BTW, you did send a long diatribe to the list which means it went to "everybody." No, the Pope and Prime Minister of The Netherlands probably did not see it so literally speaking you didn't send it to everybody.
The first response addressed your tone and stated the reality (like it or not) about things getting changed by *developers* who may not find the requested change (which in this instance was not identified) to be of immediate interest to them. Developers of Open Source projects like LibreOffice are oftentimes users of the software themselves. In general there is no hierarchy of managers to assign tasks to a programmer on the project whether the programmer is interested in the task or not.
The original responder also suggested that you delve into the code and submit a patch that would implement the feature that you feel is lacking. You did state in a later post that you are a software developer so aside from the size and complexity of the project that ought not to be such a daunting task. Other posts by you seem to imply that you are only interested in performing development work if you are paid money for doing so. I truly hope I misunderstood that. The spirit of FOSS development is entirely different.
Nobody is suggesting that you kiss the ring on the developers' hands. Simply state _how_ undo in Writer can be made better. Hopefully that will lead to a rational discussion and result in an even better product for everybody. Ranting and threatening will accomplish little if any good.
I think the built in help may need updating for this change in location for undo settings for 5.1.3.2.
Steve
steveedmonds wrote
I think the built in help may need updating for this change in location
for undo settings for 5.1.3.2.
Actually already in code review queue for tdf#99637
<https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99637> (or the NAB
tdf#97279) response to changes of ref [1] with:
https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/24774/ to supplement ref [2].
=-ref-=
[1] Options panel rework
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=0b0fb87fbac36ef9fbf3dfeac0f1372617f4b3e4
[2] Removal of obsolete Help entries
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/help/commit/?id=7baa265c995f1d27cef325bf1583a579737e11df
A bit of personal opinion here: this can be done completely outside of
LibreOffice, in a program-agnostic way that might be more useful since it
could be applied to other stuff.
A script/program set to monitor a directory/file, and create a new backup
with timestamp every time the file change would suit that purpose. Simply
activate the auto-save feature of your favorite tool and it can take
advantage of it.
Of course, it could also be done *in* LibreOffice/any tool, and provide
better integration (no need to close/reopen file for example). But I'm
cautious when too many unrelated features find their way in a program...
I might write some lightweight python script to do just that, for fun
and to make everyone happy, I'll add a settings where you can limit the
amount of backup to keep 