From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vikas Rawal Subject: Re: A book produced using Org Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 06:36:25 +0530 Message-ID: <6F8ECF8A-D17C-4A27-878B-D0C98E064C77@agrarianresearch.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38791) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZdT6Q-00081g-Lh for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 21:07:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZdT6N-0004dp-CE for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 21:07:38 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.220.51]:33051) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZdT6N-0004dl-6K for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 21:07:35 -0400 Received: by pacex6 with SMTP id ex6so83314200pac.0 for ; Sat, 19 Sep 2015 18:07:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Pascal Fleury , org-mode mailing list > On 20-Sep-2015, at 4:20 am, Pascal Fleury wrote: >=20 > Great! Congrats! >=20 > I was actually wondering: you are 3 authors. How did you collaborate, = in practice ? There was a thread about using org for collaborative work, = but it seemed to end in discussing other tools... > Was it plain git/emacs and the tools used usually for code management = ? Well, unfortunately, the other two authors are not familiar with emacs, = org-mode, or LaTeX. The parts they wrote were sent as MS-Word files. I converted them into = Org-mode. For the parts I wrote, I sent them PDFs. The first time, I also sent = them a Word version. I offered them that they could comment in word = (with track changes) and send me, or better still, work on hard copies = and send me the scans. The PDFs were so far superior to those word = files, that could not resist them :). So, their comments came as scans = of the commented hard copies, and I incorporated them in. Once they were = comfortable with this, in subsequent rounds, I had to send them only = PDFs. We followed the same process with the copy editors. The copy editors = worked on hard copies, and I incorporated the comments. This actually = had a huge advantage since, in the process of incorporating their edits, = I went through every single change they wanted to make. I do not know if = they had done this on their software, how I would have gone through = every sentence to check if and what had been modified. The publisher usually works with InDesign, but was willing to let me = deal with production of the print-ready PDF if I could meet her = specifications. Again, this meant additional work for me. But this was = also far more efficient than converting everything into Word, and then = letting her set it up on InDesign. Both these steps would have been far = more laborious. For example, I doubt if InDesign can make an author = index automatically from citations in the way biblatex does. So, the barrier in our case was not to find the most appropriate = version-control software. The problem was that the other two authors = were completely unfamiliar with any of these tools. But, even with that, = using Org-mode was so far superior to shifting to Word or anything of = that kind. No question. Vikas