What really excites me about this concept is getting "version control for
free".
Starting out at the file level sounds good. The question is what level of
granularity: Edit level (like an undo history), save level (changes
"committed" every time you save), time interval ("commits" after 2 minutes
of inactivity and every 10 minutes if inactivity save not triggered, like
an autosave), or completely manual (like a regular SCM).
I like the idea of a combination of a save level and a time interval level.
At the save level I'd have a way to include a "commit message" with the
save. It would be nice if it were easy to see a summary report between any
two commits, sort of like what you see when you do a git pull, which shows
a list of files which have been changed and their +/- edits. This is sort
of assuming that an outline has multiple @<file> nodes in it.
I'm not advocating much more than an SCM fully integrated into the
outlining software (which is why I'm using common SCM terminology). The
difference between this and say what Edward does already is that this would
be fully automatic and by default local (in the context of Leo, potentially
fully integrated in the .leo file itself). Additionally I'd make it as back
end agnostic. The user would have the option to "connect" their .leo file
to a hosted/external repository. If you only included the save level
commits with custom commit messages I imagine the commit history would look
almost exactly like what is seen in the Leo's current git repo. I imagine a
smoother workflow by not having to leave Leo. That is how I get to "version
control for free".
Fossil seems like a good fit for a back-end because it is self-contained (a
single smallish binary, truly cross-platform), uses a single file (easy to
keep track of). Mercurial might also make a good back-end because it is
more popular and because it's written partially in Python. Then obviously
Git has the most popularity, so that is a strong consideration.
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 11:30:00 AM UTC-5, Offray Vladimir Luna
Cárdenas wrote:
>
>
> On 25/01/17 19:56, john lunzer wrote:
> > Nice, pretty much what I imagined it would look like. Now that I think
> about it statistical analysis of nodes can be done completely separately
> from node history. Just need to track each edit with a timestamp.
> >
>
> With Core Object (alike) technologies you add a temporal dimension to
> the spacial dimension of outlines/trees. I think that these are
> interesting ideas (despite of not having plans to implement them soon
> for my outliner). As I said I'm now more focused on history at file
> level instead of node level and a smooth user experience of literate
> computing in an outliner environment, which is still a long path to
> follow, but once this is done, collaborative real time outline editing
> with node history would be an interesting pursue.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Offray
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"leo-editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
