Uwe Brauer <o...@mat.ucm.es> writes: >>>> "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.
I think collaborators who have even a tiny familiarity with technological tools make the whole process much, much easier. Unfortunately I'm working with technophobes, the sort of people who call the browser "the internet", so I have almost no wiggle room at all... E
