By Mac - Friday, April 1, 2005
|
Three individuals of my family are working on different branches of the same family tree. All are using GenoPro. Is it possible to merge each version into one master tree?
|
By appleshaw - Thursday, August 18, 2005
|
If each person is working on a separate area completely then the three trees can be assembled into one master program by putting each onto a separate GenoMap. You can then identify a common person to make a link between the maps. Probably the easiest way is to move the person between the two maps you are linking and then link as child/parent/spouse - as appropriate.
You will have to work out how to deal with subsequent editing. Also check the same person is not entered by two different people
|
By Mac - Thursday, August 18, 2005
|
Thanks for the idea. Unfortunately, we are each working on the same master tree so we each already have the names of most of the family members. What's happening is that we are then taking responsibility for filling in the details of members we are more familiar with. What we want to do is then merge all the updated details back into the same master tree. Can that be done?
|
By Yehudad - Thursday, August 18, 2005
|
As appleshaw said you have to coordinate your actions on the tree, because you can't know which person was updated.
What I suggest is this: One of you should be the manager of the file.
Divide your family tree into several GenoMaps.
If someone want to update a part of the tree he notifies the manager so the others won't update this GenoMap until he finishes his work.
He then sends the complete GenoMap to the Manager who replaces the one he has with the new one.
The all .gno file is then sent to the others.
|
By rdn - Thursday, August 18, 2005
|
Hello,
A complex solution if your team updated a huge tree, is to export all of the information into a database, and then retrieve detailed, unique information about each of the people in your list. Then you need to merge the data and resubmit into GenoPro. To do such a task, described above requires quite a bit of effort, and time. It will also require programming skills, etc. However, if you are totally stuck and have tremendous amount of data you need to organize, this may be the optimal method. Otherwise, I would recommend yehudad's idea.
|
By Mac - Thursday, August 18, 2005
|
Hey, thanks guys. The complex solution would be overkill because the tree is not that massive. So far as asking two Genopists to hold off from updating their part of the tree for (possibly) several weeks while the third Genopist got his/her act together, I don't think will go down well! However, all the ideas that have been posted have given me food for thought so I'll get back to my fellow Genopists and work something out between us.
|
By Yehudad - Thursday, August 18, 2005
|
You dont have to hold the others from updating the tree, only the one GenoMap which is being updated.
What you need to do is divide your family tree to several GenoMaps say 1-6.
Then A tells the manager he is going to update GenoMap 3.
The manager then tells the other modifiers that GenoMap 3 is being modified.
The other modifiers can modify other GenoMaps (except for GenoMap 3).
When A finishes his work he sends GenoMap 3 to the manager.
The manager pastes the modified GenoMap to the Master file, which can be sent to the others.
|
By Mac - Thursday, August 18, 2005
|
Thanks yehudad; I'll chat that through with the other Genopists. I'm new to GenoPro and this is my first time on the Forum. It's great!!
|
By Yehudad - Thursday, August 18, 2005
|
And the program is a great one.
Maybe Dan will come up with a solution for the Merge problem. But I think that it will be only in version 2.1 since it is not in the whats next list of version 2.0
|
By jmoran - Thursday, August 18, 2005
|
A complex solution if your team updated a huge tree, is to export all of the information into a database, ...
Incedentally, this is almost exactly what I had in mind when I posted the thread about saving data to a MySQL database.
John
|
By GenoProSupport - Thursday, August 18, 2005
|
Merging genealogy trees is a very difficult task. I already have an attack plan to tackle the problem, however I have to finish GenoPro 2.0 first.
Such a merge feature will also be capable to "track changes" to a genealogy document. The user will be capable to accept or reject partial and/or all changes with a single button click.
Internally, GenoPro will use XML to compare nodes and do the merging. All this XML merging will be transparent to the user.
Having the option to merge genealogy trees will allow multiple users to edit the same genealogy tree simultaneously. This will be a handy feature for individuals doing genealogy research from different locations. GenoPro will probably offer a service of secure encrypted web hosting of genealogy trees, so people can edit their genealogy tree and store them on the web where the data is safe, yet accessible from any location.
|
By crash893 - Thursday, August 18, 2005
|
you could use the options to put colored boxes around indviduals
you could color code your work
person 1 = yellow
person 2 = red
person 3= blue
|
By GenoProSupport - Monday, August 28, 2006
|
You are welcome to read post Multiple users entering data & pictures for the same family tree without overwriting for further details
|
By Leonard1963 - Sunday, December 17, 2006
|
Just been thinking about the problems noted above and while i am not a programmer byany stretch of the imagination, I think I have a solution that a programmer could make a reality. I have my entire family tree on one page. I can navigate it very easily, but others look at it, smile politely and say they are glad they arent doing it. So I don't realy need to merge different parts of my family as such. However, I do receive data from family members around the world as well as people who are not certain if they are related or not. I, like many I am sure, receive this data as genopro files, gedcom files, fax trees, fax databases, etc, etc. You all know the story. I always end up setting up a second tree to check it through before I put it on my tree. I then have to go through the process of transferring information, one person at a time. Often, the information I have conflicts with the information I received. My thoughts are that if i were to build up the second section of tree, could it be imported into my primary tree as an 'overlap' that can be edited? Eg: my family is DL, EL, HL, CL, ML, CL, SL. If I created a second tree with the same names, and then imported it as an overlap, I would see all of the names in my primary tree highlighted in one colour as well and any new names in another. To resolve confilicts, I double click on the name and it comes as an edit screen showing old and new data in different highlights so that it can be edited. As each name is edited and the screen closed, the data is absorbed into the primary tree and the name returns to its normal colour format. Using the same principles, the fellow who had several people working on different parts of the tree can easily update what ever is sent to him without having to get stressed. Hope this idea helps.
|
By rdn - Monday, December 18, 2006
|
I think this idea is great. Basically, there can be a check mark for processed or non-processed individuals. This way, if an individual is not processed (i.e. not checked to find a correlation) can be found quickly and efficiently. Then this individual will be either deleted (a copy exists already), have the check mark removed (i.e. no further update required and accept as part of tree), or moved to a different location (i.e. set as part of the tree).
|