On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:35:46 +0000 (UTC) Guenter Milde <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2010-04-14, Typhoon wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:56:10 +0200 > > Abdelrazak Younes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 04/14/2010 06:42 PM, Jose Quesada wrote: > > >> > Great post Abdel. > >> > The idea of sharing repos as a portable document format is great. > > Indeed. > > > I don't know what the technical challenges might be, but do we have > > to choose? Emacs supports RCS, CVS, bazaar, mercurial and git (at > > least - there may be others). Let the user choose. > > Someone has to do the work. So (at least in the beginning) it is the > developer who chooses. (With Emacs (or e.g. the Jed editor), every > user can write/provide/install additional modes. This flexibility is > the core of Emacs' power.) > > > > If it isn't necessary, I don't think that LyX should lock into one > > system. > > While it is good to support a wide choice of systems for version > control, for a "portable LyX document" *one* format is the right way. I see the argument, and you may be right. BUT when I wanted to collaborate with a colleague, they knew how to use Bazaar, so we went that way. I think it would have been hard to get them to use something else. As I said before, I don't know what the technical problems are in implementing this in LyX. However, if it is possible to support more than one DVCS, then I think it should be kept in mind. The "portable" in "portable LyX document" is a very relative thing. It depends almost entirely on who you want to "port" it to. I suppose that if everything is bundled with LyX, then the choice is made and it doesn't matter. Is that a sensible solution? In the end, I suppose that it may be a technical question/solution and I am absolutely unqualified to speak to that. But I hope that people who are qualified will at least consider keeping the options open. Cheers, Alan > > > Günter > > -- Alan L Tyree http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan Tel: 04 2748 6206
