Changes between Version 2 and Version 3 of Ticket #6447, comment 7
- Timestamp:
- 2011-10-16T11:12:04+02:00 (14 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #6447, comment 7
v2 v3 1 This is a duplicate of #4991. I worked on a fix for the latter, but the result is similar to olejorgenb’s patch. I believe option #4 would be the cleanest solution, but only expose MoveCommand.getLayer.1 This is a duplicate of #4991. I worked on a fix for the latter, but the result is similar to olejorgenb’s patch. I believe option *4 would be the cleanest solution, but only expose MoveCommand.getLayer. 2 2 3 3 Option *1 has the disadvantage of changing JOSM behaviour and it’s not clear it would improve the situation (I know applications where the undo is this fine-grained. It’s annoying to have to hit undo five times before your action is actually undone. If this is really is an issue, this should be solved outside of this bug) 4 4 5 Option *2: I agree all nodes are likely to belong to the same data set, but we’d have to assert that. This is true as well for option #4, at least unless there’s some kind of check added that returns <null> if the nodes are on multiple layers (or data sets).5 Option *2: I agree all nodes are likely to belong to the same data set, but we’d have to assert that. This is true as well for option *4, at least unless there’s some kind of check added that returns <null> if the nodes are on multiple layers (or data sets). 6 6 7 7 Option *3: sounds overcomplicated, given that all information we need is already stored elsewhere.
