I'm failing to understand why. Here is my story. I have a small project in version control. I also keep the outline in version control. I think this is good, the outline serves as skeleton for the project, it evolves together with the project.
I learned to ignore the diffs related to the header of the outline - I just don't look at them. I think I already saw on this list other people complaining about it too, I just don't remember the exact context to add a reference link to another thread. But the implications go further. I'm using branching often to emulate bzr shelve / git stash for putting away some unfinished changes when I'm in the middle of something. When I'm merging later, the outline file always produces conflicts. The header that stores data about the expanded nodes is different and I have to merge raw XML manually, which is not pleasant. I can think of a couple of reasons why leo itself is not affected by this. leo uses those reference files (which I personally consider a hack that tries to rather dodge the vcs implications than mitigate them). Also, leo development is mostly linear, not branched, so conflicts don't happen often. I will be extremely happy if one day that data goes away from the outline header. I don't see anymore how the persistence of expanded nodes has a major positive impact. When closing an outline, it is good to have a "resume entry point" for the next time, but this is achieved easily by cloning the node in question into the root, so it stays visible. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to leo-edi...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
