File specific exporting of tags

File specific exporting of tags

[Daniel J. Sinder]

The documentation for org-export-with-tags mentions the file
specific "tags" option.  But, it should probably be added to 12.6.5
in the manual (I'm looking at manual version 5.13e).

Section 12.6.5 should also state the valid values, which as far as I
can tell are 't', 'nil', and 'not-in-toc'.

Dan

Re: File specific exporting of tags

[Bastien]

"Daniel J. Sinder" <djsinder@gmail.com> writes:

> The documentation for org-export-with-tags mentions the file
> specific "tags" option.  But, it should probably be added to 12.6.5
> in the manual (I'm looking at manual version 5.13e).

Yes.  I guess I will have to make sure this sentence at the bottom of
the manual is true for this `org-export-with-tags' option:

   These options take effect in both the HTML and LaTeX export...

> Section 12.6.5 should also state the valid values, which as far as I
> can tell are 't', 'nil', and 'not-in-toc'.

Right.

Thanks,

-- 
Bastien

RE: File specific exporting of tags

[Egli Christian (KIRO 41)]

Hi Dan

> The documentation for org-export-with-tags mentions the file
> specific "tags" option.  But, it should probably be added to 12.6.5
> in the manual (I'm looking at manual version 5.13e).

Can you try to adapt the relevant text in org.texi (in the distribution
of org-mode) and produce a patch. This would certainly help a lot to get
your "problem" fixed.

If you need any help on producing a patch let me know.

Thanks
Christian 

Re: File specific exporting of tags

[Daniel J. Sinder]

On 11/19/2007 12:19 AM, Egli Christian (KIRO 41) wrote:
> Can you try to adapt the relevant text in org.texi (in the distribution
> of org-mode) and produce a patch. This would certainly help a lot to get
> your "problem" fixed.

I do appreciate that providing a patch is a better solution than
providing information leading to the patch.  However, I provided the
relevant section and valid option values in the hope that someone
who knows better could derive a patch faster and more easily than I
can.  As it was, I took time to determine experimentally, what the
valid values were since, to me, reading Lisp is about as much fun as
reading a good legal contract.

> If you need any help on producing a patch let me know.

Yes, I'd greatly appreciate help.  Some example commands would at
least make it more likely that producing the patch myself wouldn't
stagnate due to my perception of the time it would take me to figure
out how to do it.

Thanks,
Dan

Re: File specific exporting of tags

[Bastien]

"Daniel J. Sinder" <djsinder@gmail.com> writes:

>> Can you try to adapt the relevant text in org.texi (in the distribution
>> of org-mode) and produce a patch. This would certainly help a lot to get
>> your "problem" fixed.
>
> I do appreciate that providing a patch is a better solution than
> providing information leading to the patch.  

Both relevant suggestions and patches are useful.  Most of the times a
suggestion will be enough, if it is relevant and accurate (as yours was)
Sometimes patches will be okay but, as Carsten told me, Org manual is in
constant move under his fingers, so don't spend too much time on trying
to edit it and send the *perfect patch* :)

> Yes, I'd greatly appreciate help.  Some example commands would at
> least make it more likely that producing the patch myself wouldn't
> stagnate due to my perception of the time it would take me to figure
> out how to do it.

Since you're using Emacs, the easiest way to make a patch is this:

- keep the original copy of org.texi somewhere (version A)
- copy it into a working directory (version B)
- edit version B
- in dired, hit `=' on version B
- enter version A at the prompt
- go to the newly opened window containing the diff
- save the diff buffer into something like "org_yourname.texi.patch"
- send it to the list/Carsten

You're done.

HTH,

-- 
Bastien

RE: File specific exporting of tags

[Egli Christian (KIRO 41)]

Hi Daniel 

Daniel Sindler wrote:
> On 11/19/2007 12:19 AM, Egli Christian (KIRO 41) wrote:
> > Can you try to adapt the relevant text in org.texi (in the
distribution
> > of org-mode) and produce a patch. This would certainly help a lot to
get
> > your "problem" fixed.

> I do appreciate that providing a patch is a better solution than
> providing information leading to the patch.  However, I provided the
> relevant section and valid option values in the hope that someone
> who knows better could derive a patch faster and more easily than I
> can.  As it was, I took time to determine experimentally, what the
> valid values were since, to me, reading Lisp is about as much fun as
> reading a good legal contract.

I appreciate the time you took to analyse the problem and propose a
solution. I was just hinting that producing a patch to the documentation
is very easy (in fact that is how I got into hacking on org-mode :-))
and will IMHO give the developers more time to focus on the code. The
documentation in org.texi is basically text with some markup and can be
adapted easily, so no lisp know-how required.

> > If you need any help on producing a patch let me know.

> Yes, I'd greatly appreciate help.

Bastien gave a better explanation than I could have ever done.

HTH
Chtistian

Re: File specific exporting of tags

[Bastien]

Hi Christian and all,

I'd just like to add a bit of clarification on two points.

"Egli Christian (KIRO 41)" <christian.egli@credit-suisse.com> writes:

> I appreciate the time you took to analyse the problem and propose a
> solution. I was just hinting that producing a patch to the documentation
> is very easy (in fact that is how I got into hacking on org-mode :-))

Sure, and if anyone *likes* this way of proposing a change, let's go for
it!  But unless one is 95% sure that the patch is accurate (e.g. when it 
is a change on typos), I guess it will be enough to send a suggestion --
especially if using diff is more work than anything...

> and will IMHO give the developers more time to focus on the code. The
> documentation in org.texi is basically text with some markup and can be
> adapted easily, so no lisp know-how required.

It's been several times that the word "developpers" appeared in its
plural form...  While I would happily put myself into that category, I
think people should bare in mind that I'm only providing patches and
suggestions -- and Carsten _is_ the developper !

Having successfully hijacked a mailing list should not be a reason to be
held as a "developper".

:)

-- 
Bastien