Attachments (1)
Change History (7)
by , 5 years ago
Attachment: | 2020-05-17-230025_1118x658_scrot.png added |
---|
comment:1 by , 5 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
follow-up: 3 comment:2 by , 5 years ago
is it intended that the selected (= highlighted) row may contain different members?
Try v613 and v614.
comment:3 by , 5 years ago
Replying to GerdP:
is it intended that the selected (= highlighted) row may contain different members?
Try v613 and v614.
There seems to be a clinch if the order is reverted. Would be nice if in these situations instead of the complete row the same member would be highlighted in different rows.
comment:4 by , 5 years ago
I am not happy about the highlighting (selecting) if the member has a new position. In this case, please, highlight (select) the member on both sides. If it is not possible to select half a row, select both. Thanks
follow-up: 6 comment:5 by , 5 years ago
The behaviour is the same as in the way node diff (just highlighting the row, w/o any semantic check). Please open a separate ticket to change it. This is definitively out of scope the 20.05 milestone.
In 16458/josm: