[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Org mode and Emacs
From: |
Bastien |
Subject: |
Re: Org mode and Emacs |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Sep 2022 08:12:13 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Tim,
Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:
> The question I wonder about is where are we most likely to get the
> majority of our contributions from, those who use org mode and know it
> or those who don't and for those who use org-mode, how many will
> know texinfo?
Recruiting contributors for Org is also a way to recruit contributors
for the GNU project in general, which uses Texinfo as its standard
format for manuals.
For occasional fixes, I don't think the difference between the .texi
and .org format makes that much of a difference.
For substantial contributions, it probably does: but contributors of
these important changes are probably those for which this difference
can easily be overcome -- and *should* be overcome, because they are
also potential contributors for the GNU project.
> (I still find determining if something is a
> known issue or not and the state of progress to resolving it difficult
> to track
(FWIW I agree, that's the motivation behind my work on Woof!.)
> Real problem is the challenge of realising a better
> process given the very very few core contributors available - basically
> a resourcing challenge).
What we don't see so far is the contributors we lose because we use
.org as the format for the manual: Eli is one and there are probably
others.
> At the end of the day, I think the dog food argument is
> important. Having the manual in org format has seen a number of
> improvements and does provide a good and most importantly large and used
> example. Having a sample document which developers could use to verify
> parsers etc would be a good addition, but the problem with such
> documents is they tend not to be maintained and are not actively
> used. There is huge value in having a large and reasonably complex
> document which is being actively updated/enhanced and which is used in
> the real world to produce documents in various formats which are also
> actively read and used. It tends to be in active use of generated
> documents we find more subtle issues, things which tend to be
> missed in cursory scans of test documents.
Full disclosure: the dog food argument never convinced me. Dog
fooding /per se/ never makes any sense, unless you motivate it with
another good reason.
I suspect our (lispian?) brains is fascinated by recursive stuff (a
rose is a rose is a rose) but this is something we should resist.
Anyway, I won't insist on this anymore, the decision will be that
of all Org core maintainers, of course.
--
Bastien
- Re: Org mode and Emacs, Bastien, 2022/09/24
- Re: Org mode and Emacs, Payas Relekar, 2022/09/25
- Re: Org mode and Emacs, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/09/25
- Re: Org mode and Emacs, Tim Cross, 2022/09/25
- Re: Org mode and Emacs,
Bastien <=
- Re: Org mode and Emacs, Ihor Radchenko, 2022/09/26
- Re: Org mode and Emacs, Bastien, 2022/09/26
- Re: Org mode and Emacs, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/09/26
- Re: Org mode and Emacs, Jean Louis, 2022/09/26
- Re: Org mode and Emacs, Ihor Radchenko, 2022/09/26
- Re: Org mode and Emacs, Robert Pluim, 2022/09/26
- Re: Org mode and Emacs, Richard Stallman, 2022/09/27
- Re: Org mode and Emacs, Ihor Radchenko, 2022/09/29
- Re: Org mode and Emacs, Richard Stallman, 2022/09/26
- Re: Org mode and Emacs, Ihor Radchenko, 2022/09/25