On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:35:46 +0000 (UTC)
Guenter Milde <mi...@users.berlios.de> wrote:

> On 2010-04-14, Typhoon wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:56:10 +0200
> > Abdelrazak Younes <you...@lyx.org> wrote:
> >> On 04/14/2010 06:42 PM, Jose Quesada wrote:
> >> > Great post Abdel.
> >> > The idea of sharing repos as a portable document format is great.
> Indeed.
> > I don't know what the technical challenges might be, but do we have
> > to choose? Emacs supports RCS, CVS, bazaar, mercurial and git (at
> > least - there may be others). Let the user choose. 
> Someone has to do the work. So (at least in the beginning) it is the
> developer who chooses.  (With Emacs (or e.g. the Jed editor), every
> user can write/provide/install additional modes. This flexibility is
> the core of Emacs' power.)
> > If it isn't necessary, I don't think that LyX should lock into one
> > system. 
> While it is good to support a wide choice of systems for version
> control, for a "portable LyX document" *one* format is the right way.

I see the argument, and you may be right. BUT when I wanted to
collaborate with a colleague, they knew how to use Bazaar, so we went
that way. I think it would have been hard to get them to use something

As I said before, I don't know what the technical problems are in
implementing this in LyX. However, if it is possible to support more
than one DVCS, then I think it should be kept in mind. The "portable"
in "portable LyX document" is a very relative thing. It depends almost
entirely on who you want to "port" it to. 

I suppose that if everything is bundled with LyX, then the choice is
made and it doesn't matter. Is that a sensible solution?

In the end, I suppose that it may be a technical question/solution and
I am absolutely unqualified to speak to that. But I hope that people
who are qualified will at least consider keeping the options open.


> G√ľnter

Alan L Tyree                    http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206

Reply via email to