>>> "Eric" == Eric Abrahamsen <e...@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
> Matt Price <mopto...@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.
