Re: [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

[Bastien <bzg@gnu.org>]

Hi Nicolas,

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 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