From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastien Subject: Re: [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 11:29:31 +0100 Message-ID: <87lgf89lro.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87bmhooaj9.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87y3j8dw45.fsf@bzg.fr> <87lgf8f93b.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56201) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1esQti-0003yA-0A for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2018 05:29:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1esQtc-00089J-UA for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Mar 2018 05:29:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87lgf8f93b.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of "Sun, 04 Mar 2018 11:06:48 +0100") 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" To: Nicolas Goaziou Cc: Glenn Morris , Achim Gratz , Org Mode List Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > For the record, and as a first feedback, I totally disagree with the > FUD (".org flexibility will bring us new problems", seriously) > spread about the Org manual. Maybe I used the wrong word: let's call them "challenges", not "problems". But I'm sure there will be some. And that's fine. In any case, I did not want to spread FUD and I don't have strong opinions on this issue. > I spent months on the Org file. If it was a pain to do > so ("Let's test org capabilities against a giant .org file."), I think > I would have noticed. When I said "Let's test org capabilities against a giant .org file." I was not just thinking about editing it, but also e.g. exporting. Testing the .texi exporter (and maybe .html and .pdf) against this big file will be interesting. Testing the process of running "make pdf" while emacs will in charge of producing a PDF file (.org => .texi => .pdf) will be interesting, and potentially more error-prone than the current .texi=>.pdf process. But again, that's fine. > The difficult part was to define editing > conventions and stick to them. This is now done, and unrelated to the > problem at hand. I have not read the conventions yet, and other contributors may not have read them, so this those conventions are just a proposal for now. Core contributors need to formally discuss them and explicitely agree. Again, the question is: what problem are we trying to solve? Do you agree with the one I suggested? Do you see others? -- Bastien