org-annotate/collaboration?

org-annotate/collaboration?

[Matt Price]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 794 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 907 bytes --]

Re: org-annotate/collaboration?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Matt Price <moptop99@gmail.com> 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

Re: org-annotate/collaboration?

[Alan E. Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2692 bytes --]

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 <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>
wrote:

> Matt Price <moptop99@gmail.com> 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_

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4105 bytes --]

Re: org-annotate/collaboration?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

"Alan E. Davis" <lngndvs@gmail.com> 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: org-annotate/collaboration?

[Alan E. Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2077 bytes --]

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 <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>
wrote:

> "Alan E. Davis" <lngndvs@gmail.com> 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_

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3381 bytes --]

Re: org-annotate/collaboration?

[Cook, Malcolm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 82 bytes --]

Alan, just wondering, what operating system and file system are you using now?


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2310 bytes --]

Re: org-annotate/collaboration?

[Alan E. Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 707 bytes --]

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 <MEC@stowers.org> 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_

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2417 bytes --]

Re: org-annotate/collaboration?

[Uwe Brauer]

>>> "Eric" == Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

   > Matt Price <moptop99@gmail.com> 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: org-annotate/collaboration?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> writes:

>>>> "Eric" == Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
>
>    > Matt Price <moptop99@gmail.com> 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: org-annotate/collaboration?

[Uwe Brauer]

   > Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> 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: org-annotate/collaboration?

[Eric Abrahamsen]

Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> writes:

>    > Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> 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: org-annotate/collaboration?

[Uwe Brauer]

   > Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> 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: org-annotate/collaboration?

[Eduardo Mercovich]

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)