Re: [O] org-annotate/collaboration?
Hi Matt. > Does anyone use org-annotate actively? I'm wondering what your > workflow is, how you incorporate comments, etc. > I'm hoping to embark on a book project with a colleague. [...] Is the math "Homotopy Type Theory" book git solution too much for your colleague? http://math.andrej.com/2013/06/20/the-hott-book/ I still didn't used git personally, but I'm looking for an opportunity. ;) Best... -- Eduardo Mercovich Donde se cruzan tus talentos con las necesidades del mundo, ahí está tu vocación. (Anónimo)
Re: [O] org-annotate/collaboration?
> Uwe Brauer writes: > I think I could easily convince people to use an online system, or one > that works in Markdown (which would be nice). The killer is the history > tracking: everyone's used to Track Changes, and it would take a real > revolution to dislodge them from that. Another idea would be to use https://www.authorea.com/ which uses latex. I had a look it was not for me, but it allows via a git plugin to use an external editor and to push and to pull. I have not looked into its track change functionality but may be it is worth a try. > Even I, the supposedly technical one, screw up git regularly. Interesting, I chose mercurial and never had a problem. When I had a look at authorea I thought about switching from RCS to git but found it to difficult for, mercurial was much easier and has a git plugin which works nicely. Mercurial also as an annotate functionality (supported by emacs) which is nice and comes close to a change track (but of course it is linewise not wordwise). Uwe
Re: [O] org-annotate/collaboration?
Uwe Brauer writes: >> Uwe Brauer writes: > >> I think collaborators who have even a tiny familiarity with >> technological tools make the whole process much, much easier. >> Unfortunately I'm working with technophobes, the sort of people who >> call the browser "the internet", so I have almost no wiggle room at >> all... > > One of the annoying thing in collaboration is to use email that is why a > server client model is more convenient. > > Hm, my collaborator is neither technical skilled but willing to use the > command line, and he writes in latex anyway which requires some > understanding your folks seem not to have. > > Another option you could use is LyX (and therefore latex of some sort). > LyX has a tracker of changes similar to the one provided by OpenOffice > and friends. It also supports some version control system (forgot the > details). > > But then again that might all be too technical, shrug I think I could easily convince people to use an online system, or one that works in Markdown (which would be nice). The killer is the history tracking: everyone's used to Track Changes, and it would take a real revolution to dislodge them from that. Even I, the supposedly technical one, screw up git regularly. E
Re: [O] org-annotate/collaboration?
> Uwe Brauer writes: > I think collaborators who have even a tiny familiarity with > technological tools make the whole process much, much easier. > Unfortunately I'm working with technophobes, the sort of people who > call the browser "the internet", so I have almost no wiggle room at > all... One of the annoying thing in collaboration is to use email that is why a server client model is more convenient. Hm, my collaborator is neither technical skilled but willing to use the command line, and he writes in latex anyway which requires some understanding your folks seem not to have. Another option you could use is LyX (and therefore latex of some sort). LyX has a tracker of changes similar to the one provided by OpenOffice and friends. It also supports some version control system (forgot the details). But then again that might all be too technical, shrug
Re: [O] org-annotate/collaboration?
Uwe Brauer writes: "Eric" == Eric Abrahamsen writes: > >> Matt Price writes: >>> Does anyone use org-annotate actively? I'm wondering what your >>> workflow is, how you incorporate comments, etc. > >> I wrote it, and I don't use it that much. I do use it for quick >> notes-to-self when writing, but footnotes do the job just as well. > >>> I'm hoping to embark on a book project with a colleague. I would like >>> to use org-mode if I can, but I need to get a sense of the >>> collaboration workflow. When you work on projects together, do you use >>> annotations? Or git pull requests? If the latter, od you use any >>> filters, or any magit tricks, to approve or modify suggested changes >>> chunk by chunk? > >> It's a huge problem, and one that org-annotate isn't going to solve. I >> do a lot of manuscript editing, and passing files around, and have only >> barely gotten some people to accept my "weird" workflow, which is to >> send them a clean version of an edited file, and along with that an HTML >> file containing htmlized word-diff output, where the insertions and >> deletions are colorized. They make further edits on the clean copy, and >> I do another go-around. It's a huge pain. > > I did (and still do) the same, using latex and latexdiff, but found out > that a better solution is to use mercurial and bitbucket (I presume git > should be fine as well), since one of my collaborators agree to use it > as well. This is quite a relief to the former method relying on external > tools and email. > > - Usually instead of comments I use issuesin bitbucket. > - hg diff is not perfect but a good first approximation. I think collaborators who have even a tiny familiarity with technological tools make the whole process much, much easier. Unfortunately I'm working with technophobes, the sort of people who call the browser "the internet", so I have almost no wiggle room at all... E
Re: [O] org-annotate/collaboration?
>>> "Eric" == Eric Abrahamsen writes: > Matt Price writes: >> Does anyone use org-annotate actively? I'm wondering what your >> workflow is, how you incorporate comments, etc. > I wrote it, and I don't use it that much. I do use it for quick > notes-to-self when writing, but footnotes do the job just as well. >> I'm hoping to embark on a book project with a colleague. I would like >> to use org-mode if I can, but I need to get a sense of the >> collaboration workflow. When you work on projects together, do you use >> annotations? Or git pull requests? If the latter, od you use any >> filters, or any magit tricks, to approve or modify suggested changes >> chunk by chunk? > It's a huge problem, and one that org-annotate isn't going to solve. I > do a lot of manuscript editing, and passing files around, and have only > barely gotten some people to accept my "weird" workflow, which is to > send them a clean version of an edited file, and along with that an HTML > file containing htmlized word-diff output, where the insertions and > deletions are colorized. They make further edits on the clean copy, and > I do another go-around. It's a huge pain. I did (and still do) the same, using latex and latexdiff, but found out that a better solution is to use mercurial and bitbucket (I presume git should be fine as well), since one of my collaborators agree to use it as well. This is quite a relief to the former method relying on external tools and email. - Usually instead of comments I use issuesin bitbucket. - hg diff is not perfect but a good first approximation.
Re: [O] org-annotate/collaboration?
Im using GNU/Linux, Ubutu and/or Arch. In bot cases I am using Ext4 filesystems, although i do use Fat filesystem(s)for compatibiliy with OS/X, that i infrequently use. On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:19 PM Cook, Malcolm wrote: > Alan, just wondering, what operating system and file system are you using > now? > > > -- [I do not] carry such information in my mind since it is readily available in books. …The value of a college education is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think. ---Albert Einstein "Sweet instruments hung up in cases. . . keep their sounds to themselves." ---Shakespeare, _Timon of Athens_
Re: [O] org-annotate/collaboration?
Alan, just wondering, what operating system and file system are you using now?
Re: [O] org-annotate/collaboration?
Your thoughtful, incisive responses are appreciated. It's hard to imagine why that simple expedient---a directory listing with a comment field---has failed to catch hold. It was incredibly useful. Thanks Alan Davis On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Eric Abrahamsen wrote: > "Alan E. Davis" writes: > > > I am looking for something a little different than this: annotated ls > > listings. I have been searching blindly for years for this. > > > > Back in the 90s was a Dos clone called 4dos, which featured directory > > listings with annotations, such that typing whatever the command was > > (dir?), gave a listing with the file name just like "dir" but also a > > description of the file. > > > > It was exceedingly useful for me, in keeping track of a large number > > of files. I have never seen anything like it. > > > > Could org-annotate fulfill at least part of this requirement? (I have > > posted to this list a similar question quite some years ago.) > > org-annotate could do the annotation part of it, but really that part > pales compared to the challenge of creating and maintaining directory > listings in Org. Doing it once would be easy, but tracking > additions/deletions/renames in the directory sounds like a *lot* of > work, not to mention making sure the annotations follow the correct > entry. > > I suppose if you *only* edited the directory listing through custom > commands you implement from Org mode you could keep it under control, > but still... Some challenges energize you when you start imaging how to > solve them. Others make you exhausted just thinking about them! > > Eric > > > -- [I do not] carry such information in my mind since it is readily available in books. …The value of a college education is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think. ---Albert Einstein "Sweet instruments hung up in cases. . . keep their sounds to themselves." ---Shakespeare, _Timon of Athens_
Re: [O] org-annotate/collaboration?
"Alan E. Davis" writes: > I am looking for something a little different than this: annotated ls > listings. I have been searching blindly for years for this. > > Back in the 90s was a Dos clone called 4dos, which featured directory > listings with annotations, such that typing whatever the command was > (dir?), gave a listing with the file name just like "dir" but also a > description of the file. > > It was exceedingly useful for me, in keeping track of a large number > of files. I have never seen anything like it. > > Could org-annotate fulfill at least part of this requirement? (I have > posted to this list a similar question quite some years ago.) org-annotate could do the annotation part of it, but really that part pales compared to the challenge of creating and maintaining directory listings in Org. Doing it once would be easy, but tracking additions/deletions/renames in the directory sounds like a *lot* of work, not to mention making sure the annotations follow the correct entry. I suppose if you *only* edited the directory listing through custom commands you implement from Org mode you could keep it under control, but still... Some challenges energize you when you start imaging how to solve them. Others make you exhausted just thinking about them! Eric
Re: [O] org-annotate/collaboration?
I am looking for something a little different than this: annotated ls listings. I have been searching blindly for years for this. Back in the 90s was a Dos clone called 4dos, which featured directory listings with annotations, such that typing whatever the command was (dir?), gave a listing with the file name just like "dir" but also a description of the file. It was exceedingly useful for me, in keeping track of a large number of files. I have never seen anything like it. Could org-annotate fulfill at least part of this requirement? (I have posted to this list a similar question quite some years ago.) Alan Davis On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Eric Abrahamsen wrote: > Matt Price writes: > > > Does anyone use org-annotate actively? I'm wondering what your > > workflow is, how you incorporate comments, etc. > > I wrote it, and I don't use it that much. I do use it for quick > notes-to-self when writing, but footnotes do the job just as well. > > > I'm hoping to embark on a book project with a colleague. I would like > > to use org-mode if I can, but I need to get a sense of the > > collaboration workflow. When you work on projects together, do you use > > annotations? Or git pull requests? If the latter, od you use any > > filters, or any magit tricks, to approve or modify suggested changes > > chunk by chunk? > > It's a huge problem, and one that org-annotate isn't going to solve. I > do a lot of manuscript editing, and passing files around, and have only > barely gotten some people to accept my "weird" workflow, which is to > send them a clean version of an edited file, and along with that an HTML > file containing htmlized word-diff output, where the insertions and > deletions are colorized. They make further edits on the clean copy, and > I do another go-around. It's a huge pain. > > > My colleague is familiar with markdown but for major projects has only > > ever used word. I'm trying to figure out how best to help her move to > > a text--based mode of production; the markdown ecosystem seems a lot > > larger, and I don't want the transition to be too painful. But OTOH I > > really want to stay in org if I can! > > I wish there were better solutions out there! > > Eric > > > -- [I do not] carry such information in my mind since it is readily available in books. …The value of a college education is not the learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think. ---Albert Einstein "Sweet instruments hung up in cases. . . keep their sounds to themselves." ---Shakespeare, _Timon of Athens_
Re: [O] org-annotate/collaboration?
Matt Price writes: > Does anyone use org-annotate actively? I'm wondering what your > workflow is, how you incorporate comments, etc. I wrote it, and I don't use it that much. I do use it for quick notes-to-self when writing, but footnotes do the job just as well. > I'm hoping to embark on a book project with a colleague. I would like > to use org-mode if I can, but I need to get a sense of the > collaboration workflow. When you work on projects together, do you use > annotations? Or git pull requests? If the latter, od you use any > filters, or any magit tricks, to approve or modify suggested changes > chunk by chunk? It's a huge problem, and one that org-annotate isn't going to solve. I do a lot of manuscript editing, and passing files around, and have only barely gotten some people to accept my "weird" workflow, which is to send them a clean version of an edited file, and along with that an HTML file containing htmlized word-diff output, where the insertions and deletions are colorized. They make further edits on the clean copy, and I do another go-around. It's a huge pain. > My colleague is familiar with markdown but for major projects has only > ever used word. I'm trying to figure out how best to help her move to > a text--based mode of production; the markdown ecosystem seems a lot > larger, and I don't want the transition to be too painful. But OTOH I > really want to stay in org if I can! I wish there were better solutions out there! Eric
[O] org-annotate/collaboration?
Does anyone use org-annotate actively? I'm wondering what your workflow is, how you incorporate comments, etc. I'm hoping to embark on a book project with a colleague. I would like to use org-mode if I can, but I need to get a sense of the collaboration workflow. When you work on projects together, do you use annotations? Or git pull requests? If the latter, od you use any filters, or any magit tricks, to approve or modify suggested changes chunk by chunk? My colleague is familiar with markdown but for major projects has only ever used word. I'm trying to figure out how best to help her move to a text--based mode of production; the markdown ecosystem seems a lot larger, and I don't want the transition to be too painful. But OTOH I really want to stay in org if I can! Thanks, Matt
