I would simply like to say that I think going too far down this road could lead to a lot of effort, and only a marginal return. I think we do need to make LyX better, but I don't think it needs to be too multi-purpose. You know the whole Swiss-Army knife versus a tool that does one thing, but does it well debate. I think we would be best to improve how well LyX does its primary job: document processing. We can leave other jobs to other tools. That said, as soon as there's a good tool to say, track versions of a file (like subversion), we can provide meaningful integration with that tool (and have).
I have used Google docs collaboratively, but would personally be very unlikely to use LyX in such a way. I can get up-to-date copies of my document out to people with Subversion or dropbox well enough. Just my two bits. -Jacob On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer < kun...@student.uib.no> wrote: > 2010/9/24 Gregory Jefferis <jeffe...@gmail.com>: > > Non-interactive collaborative editing means that there can always be one > > live version of a document to which anyone can apply changes that are > > versioned, identified and much more likely. Essentially it solves the > > conflicting merge problem by automatically merging all the time so that > you > > are always looking at the latest version (and can be alerted to recent > > changes). You can try and do this with traditional version control > > arrangements but you will always run into a conflict if the system isn't > > designed for the possibility of interactive collaborative editing. > > And this is the reason why most users love Google Docs and will never > use git (even though as we all know, merging with git is Fun and > Easy). > > > I think the ideal situation would look like Gobby[1] running inside > LyX (not necessarily with chat features, but at least showing where > the other user is editing), but I can understand how that would be a > lot of work to implement. Sponsorship project? ;-) > > > -Kevin > > > [1] http://gobby.0x539.de >
