Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Aloha Bastien, Bastien writes: Hi Thomas, "Thomas S. Dye" writes: Instead, let's move the project forward with the understanding that if it proves to be a bad idea, then the Org mode community will have Nicolas' very nice .texi file (with backports by Kyle Meyer) to fall

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Bastien Guerry writes: >> Exactly. Emacs will anyways ship with org.texi. So moving the manual >> source to Org in the Org repo shouldn't concern the Emacs repo. > > Yes, but it is still a concern for Emacs contributors like Glenn and > others who occasionnally make corrections in Emacs' org.texi.

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Thomas, "Thomas S. Dye" writes: > Instead, let's move the project forward with the understanding that > if it proves to be a bad idea, then the Org mode community will have > Nicolas' very nice .texi file (with backports by Kyle Meyer) to fall > back on. Maybe we are

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Aloha Bastien, I disagree that the manual project should move into a one year probation where success is measured by the number of contributors. So, my response to LETS GO! is NOT THERE! Instead, let's move the project forward with the understanding that if it proves to be a bad idea, then

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Achim, Achim Gratz writes: > I've posted a working Makefile back when Thomas was working on the > manual and it is still working with minimal modifications. If you > decide you want to have this (and exactly which way) I'm sure that can > be further refined in a matter of

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > I disagree. My motivation is not to attract more contributors. I don't > think this was Thomas and Jonathan's motivation when they started the > project either, but I may be wrong. For the record, I think having more contributors

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

phillip.l...@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) writes: > Probably, by the time all of the manuals are in org-mode, > machines will be significantly faster, there will be emacs-free org mode > converter, or we will have hit the heat death of the universe. Perhaps > it's not a problem. :) The output

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > You recently re-introduced a file named "orgmanual.org" in contrib/ > alongside "manual.org". The former is apparently outdated. Yes, my mistake, fixed now. -- Bastien

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Kaushal, Kaushal Modi writes: > Exactly. Emacs will anyways ship with org.texi. So moving the manual > source to Org in the Org repo shouldn't concern the Emacs repo. Yes, but it is still a concern for Emacs contributors like Glenn and others who occasionnally make

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello Thomas, as a preamble, let me say that I appreciate the directness of your message and the civil tone of this conversation. I understand there are frustrations lingering around, I have my own too, so let's keep this thread as constructive as possible, because we all deserve it as a

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

My 2¢ on this topic: 1. org is an excellent tool for writing. I cannot consider writing with any other tool these days. 2. texi is an excellent tool for reading/browsing documentation. Likewise, I cannot imagine doing so in another tool (in the Emacs sphere). We should find a way to

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Aloha Bastien, Bastien Guerry writes: Maybe this is where some misunderstanding arose: to me, there was no _project_ to migrate to manual.org -- it was an idea in the air after you made your experiment and we now have the decision at hand because the project is, well, DONE. We could have

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Thomas and all, please, let's take a deep breath and let me try to explain myself as clearly as possible. And remember english is not my first language, so sometimes I may not express myself in the most adequate manner. First, let me just restate this clearly: I am in favor of editing the

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> Testing the process of running "make pdf" while emacs will in charge >> of producing a PDF file (.org => .texi => .pdf) will be interesting, >> and potentially more error-prone than the current .texi=>.pdf process. > > I didn't invest time in the Makefile, so I don't

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Nicolas Goaziou writes: I don't have strong opinions on this issue. I read it otherwise. So do I. Some history. When I worked on this project several years ago, I concluded that Bastien was hostile to it, but there was nothing in his communication that was particularly negative. When

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Bastien writes: >> For the record, and as a first feedback, I totally disagree with the >> FUD (".org flexibility will bring us new problems", seriously) >> spread about the Org manual. > > Testing the .texi exporter (and maybe .html and .pdf) against this big > file will be

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:21 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > > > Again, the question is: what problem are we trying to solve? > > Org boasts itself as a format to write, among other things, > documentation. Do you think it is confidence-inspiring if we do not > write our own

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Bastien Guerry writes: > So when we make the move, we publish 9.2 by merging master in maint > and edit orgmanual.org from both maint and master. Correct? Correct, but I don't know what "orgmanual.org" you are talking about. You recently re-introduced a file named "orgmanual.org"

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello, Bastien writes: > But I'm sure there will be some. True, as I'm sure there are some "challenges" with the current Texinfo manual. Therefore, I do not see the point of insisting on the fact that a new paradigm brings new problems. > I don't have strong opinions on this

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> Is the current contrib/orgmanual.org in sync with doc/org.texi in both >> master and maint? > > Not at all. It is in sync (and a bit above) in master only. Okay. >> How difficult is it to keep it in sync in both branches? > >

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > For the record, and as a first feedback, I totally disagree with the > FUD (".org flexibility will bring us new problems", seriously) > spread about the Org manual. Maybe I used the wrong word: let's call them "challenges", not

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello, Bastien Guerry writes: > Is the current contrib/orgmanual.org in sync with doc/org.texi in both > master and maint? Not at all. It is in sync (and a bit above) in master only. > How difficult is it to keep it in sync in both branches? "manual.org" relies on improvements

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > "manual.org" was updated a month ago, and, so far, nobody complained > about it. So, I think it's a good time to discuss about what could be > done next. Is the current contrib/orgmanual.org in sync with doc/org.texi in both master

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Glenn, Glenn Morris writes: > Maybe I'm worried about nothing, but I do suggest asking on emacs-devel. Thanks for your feedback. You are definitely not worried about nothing. I share some of your worries. To speak the truth, I first thought migrating to org as the preferred

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

I'm sure this is an impressive technical achievement, but can I urge you to raise this on emacs-devel first, because I think it's potentially problematic. I'm not entirely sure what you are proposing here. If the .org version will become the "preferred form" for modification, it would eg need to

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Le sam. 03 mars 2018 à 04:57:33 , Bastien Guerry a envoyé ce message: > The rationale for using org.org (which, I agree, sounds a bit > childish) is that this is the current convention for naming GNU > manual is [package-name].[extension]. > > See emacs.texi, gnus.texi, calc.texi,

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > I don't understand this part. Currently, "manual.org" is exported as > "org.texi" per > > #+export_file_name: org.texi > > So we are getting the best of both worlds. Am I missing something? No, I was missing the

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello, Bastien Guerry writes: > Nothing, please move ahead. Great. > I suggest to rename the file org.org, which will produce org.texi. I don't understand this part. Currently, "manual.org" is exported as "org.texi" per #+export_file_name: org.texi So we are getting the

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou writes: > I'm bumping the thread. What is still needed for that to move > forward? Nothing, please move ahead. I suggest to rename the file org.org, which will produce org.texi. Or org-manual.org, which seems more readable. It would be

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello, Bastien Guerry writes: > To be continued, I'm bumping the thread. What is still needed for that to move forward? Again, the first step could be to move manual.org to core and have it generate a new org.texi, overwriting the previous one. I would also be nice to think

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi, On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Yasushi SHOJI writes: > >> Hmm... I'm using 4b2006db3d04, which includes b4cc12fc32a771 but >> it still inf-loops. `key-binding` returns `fill-paragraph`. I tried >> it

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello, Yasushi SHOJI writes: > Hmm... I'm using 4b2006db3d04, which includes b4cc12fc32a771 but > it still inf-loops. `key-binding` returns `fill-paragraph`. I tried > it `toggle-fill-unfill`, > which I set to `M-q` in general, and `org-fill-paragraph`, but nothing >

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello, Yasushi SHOJI writes: > I mean, I run `emacs -q`, > eval only the following code in the `*scratch*` buffer, > open `manual.org` and do `M-x org-reformat`. > > and I see: > > >8 >8 > @@ -134,9 +133,9 @@ > You can clone Org's repository and install

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi, On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:55 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Yasushi SHOJI writes: > >> What if _I_, for my own project, want to customize the formatter and like to >> call fill-paragraph, can I still do this? > > No need to tweak the formatter.

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello, Yasushi SHOJI writes: > What if _I_, for my own project, want to customize the formatter and like to > call fill-paragraph, can I still do this? No need to tweak the formatter. You can post-process its output to your liking, e.g., with `org-fill-paragraph'

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Yasushi SHOJI wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Nicolas Goaziou > wrote: >> Yasushi SHOJI writes: >> >>> Do you see this on your env? Or, is it just me? >> >> I don't see anything

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi, On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Yasushi SHOJI writes: > >> Do you see this on your env? Or, is it just me? > > I don't see anything like this. Hmm... I don't know how to fix this. >> I'd like to have the

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello, Yasushi SHOJI writes: > Do you see this on your env? Or, is it just me? I don't see anything like this. > I'd like to have the formatter and `fill-paragraph` work in a coherent way. > But, if you, who know org much better than me, don't know, I don't think > I

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi, On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 12:17 AM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Yasushi SHOJI writes: > >> A big one seems to be the indentation of description lists. >> The formatter seems to prefer aligning the begging of a description >> to the begging of a

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello, Yasushi SHOJI writes: > A big one seems to be the indentation of description lists. > The formatter seems to prefer aligning the begging of a description > to the begging of a term. But manual.org has some indentation. Somewhat fixed. The indentation of

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Nicolas, On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Yasushi SHOJI writes: > >> Also, the code converts all lower case "#+title", "+begin_src" and >> other "#+"s to >> the UPCASE. Is this intended? I thought we are moving away

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello, Yasushi SHOJI writes: > Also, the code converts all lower case "#+title", "+begin_src" and > other "#+"s to > the UPCASE. Is this intended? I thought we are moving away from CAP > to lower? This was changed a few days ago. See commit

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Nicolas, On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 8:28 PM, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Org Lint is not a formatter. It detects common mistakes or hypothetical > mistakes in an Org document, e.g., invalid links. In particular, it > doesn't detect stylistic issues like those discussed

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello, Yasushi SHOJI writes: > How about using org-lint or some other formatter on git commit hook? > after go lang introduced gofmt, many projects adapted the method to > keep the code constant. Org Lint is not a formatter. It detects common mistakes or hypothetical

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi, On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:54 PM, Rasmus wrote: > Bastien Guerry writes: > >> I'm all for editing manual.org instead of org.texi in the long run. >> >> Before moving manual.org into doc/, I'd suggest we agree on editing >> variables like `fill-column' and the

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

i will leave style decisions to the bike shed manufacturer [those who do the work]. but i will opine anyway. i'm with the no indentation people. [except -- not implemented -- plain lists indented by 2. :]] but my reason for posting is that as a default for org, i think (setq

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Aloha all, Nicolas Goaziou writes: Note that I made a few design choices I didn't write about, e.g.,: - use fixed-width area for one-line examples, - use example blocks for Org syntax instead of "begin_src org", - internal links to headlines always start with a star, - tags,

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:33 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > > If `org-src-fontify-natively' is non-nil, contents of source blocks is > not shown verbatim. In this particular case, contents are displayed as > in an Org buffer, which means links are partly invisible. >

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello, Kaushal Modi writes: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:52 PM Nicolas Goaziou > wrote: > >> There is another issue with "begin_src org" blocks. If your example >> contains a link, you only see the description part, not the whole >> syntax. Thus

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Am 23.01.2018 um 16:19 schrieb Kaushal Modi: > There is another issue with "begin_src org" blocks. If your example > contains a link, you only see the description part, not the whole > syntax. Thus > > #+begin_src org > [[path][description]] > #+end_src > >

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:52 PM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > Kaushal Modi writes: > > There is another issue with "begin_src org" blocks. If your example > contains a link, you only see the description part, not the whole > syntax. Thus > >

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Bastien Guerry writes: > Hi Nicolas, > >> "manual.org" was updated a month ago, and, so far, nobody complained >> about it. So, I think it's a good time to discuss about what could be >> done next. > > Having the manual in .org is a great achievement, congrats to anyone > who worked on this

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Kaushal Modi writes: > Thank you. I'd like to see Org snippets in src blocks as they are not any > "raw" monospace text blocks. But if no one else has a strong opinion for > using src blocks for Org snippets, then I guess I'll have to concede. There is another issue with

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Bastien Guerry writes: >> Why do we need it? If it is mandatory (I fail to see why, since we >> provide the source of the info file), can we include it read-only? > > It is mandatory, as long as the GNU standard for documentation is to > provide it as a .texi file. It can always be generated for

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:20 PM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > > Again, Org manual, as published in "orgmode.org", is generated through > Texinfo, which treats "begin_src org" exactly as "begin_example". So, > switching to "begin_src org" will not give us Org fontification in

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Kaushal Modi writes: > I am hoping that using "begin_src org" preserves the meta data that a code > block is an Org snippet when the Org manual HTML pages are published on > orgmode.org. Again, Org manual, as published in "orgmode.org", is generated through Texinfo,

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Aloha Bastien, Bastien Guerry writes: Hi Nicolas, "manual.org" was updated a month ago, and, so far, nobody complained about it. So, I think it's a good time to discuss about what could be done next. Having the manual in .org is a great achievement, congrats to anyone who worked on

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:02 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > "manual.org" is not meant to be exported to HTML through "ox-html", but > using Texinfo itself. AFAIK, Texinfo does not highlight specially Org > syntax, so using "begin_src org" is not very important for export. >

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Bastien Guerry writes: > I've added (org-list-description-max-indent . 5) OK. > Me too, for the same argument. But this points to a strong limitation > to `org-adapt-indentation' for which I'd like to propose this change. > >(setq org-adapt-indentation t) => current

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:35 AM Bastien Guerry wrote: > what do you think of the proposal to have > > (setq org-adapt-indentation 'content) > > set :PROPERTIES: aligned with the beginning of the headline, > while leaving content unindented? > > I'd also like to have the better

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Kaushal Modi writes: >   - use example blocks for Org syntax instead of "begin_src org", > > > I'd prefer "begin_src org". When these manuals are converted to HTML, > we can use syntax highlighting to format comments, etc in Org > snippets. I think it's good to retain

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Kaushal, Kaushal Modi writes: > I have always started PROPERTIES at col 0. With org-indent-mode > enabled, it doesn't matter.. looks pretty (PROPERTY drawer in below > screenshot actually starts at col 0): what do you think of the proposal to have (setq

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Nicolas, thanks for your answer. Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> fill-column: 70 > > This is already the case. Okay, I've found .dir-locals.el. >> org-list-description-max-indent: 5 >> org-edit-src-content-indentation: ? > > It is 2. I'd favor 0, but I don't care much.

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello, Kaushal Modi writes: > I'd prefer "begin_src org". When these manuals are converted to HTML, we > can use syntax highlighting to format comments, etc in Org snippets. I > think it's good to retain the meta data that that is not an arbitrary block > of text, but

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:51 AM Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > > org-edit-src-content-indentation: ? > > It is 2. I'd favor 0, but I don't care much. > I also favor 0, less white space noise, the better. > > This is necessary so that contributors don't mess up accidentally

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:56 AM Rasmus wrote: > > Could we use .dir-locals.el to ensure that the correct settings are > loaded? > +1 As for their values, I have no strong preferences, but I’d prefer settings > are either automatically loaded or that they are like the default

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Bastien Guerry writes: > I'm all for editing manual.org instead of org.texi in the long run. > > Before moving manual.org into doc/, I'd suggest we agree on editing > variables like `fill-column' and the like: > > fill-column: 70 > org-list-description-max-indent: 5 >

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello, Bastien Guerry writes: > Before moving manual.org into doc/, I'd suggest we agree on editing > variables like `fill-column' and the like: > > fill-column: 70 This is already the case. > org-list-description-max-indent: 5 > org-edit-src-content-indentation: ? It is 2. I'd

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hi Nicolas, > "manual.org" was updated a month ago, and, so far, nobody complained > about it. So, I think it's a good time to discuss about what could be > done next. Having the manual in .org is a great achievement, congrats to anyone who worked on this titanic task! I'm all for editing

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Achim Gratz writes: > Nicolas Goaziou writes: >> Actually, I have another idea. We could implement a function generating >> the manual, right in Org core. It can be useful for both packaging, like >> the above, and for developers, who can update the manual on the fly. > > That

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Actually, I have another idea. We could implement a function generating > the manual, right in Org core. It can be useful for both packaging, like > the above, and for developers, who can update the manual on the fly. That should go into mk/org-fixup.el then. I am not

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Hello, Achim Gratz writes: Thank you for your answer. Some comments follow. > The lack of complaints is unlikely to mean that everybody tried it and > found nothing to complain about. I didn't imply anything like that. > The export to texi is still relatively slow, I

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Nicolas Goaziou writes: Hello, "manual.org" was updated a month ago, and, so far, nobody complained about it. So, I think it's a good time to discuss about what could be done next. The first obvious step is to move the file into "doc/" directory. Then I assume we could delete "org.texi"

Re: [O] [RFC] Moving "manual.org" into core

Nicolas Goaziou writes: > "manual.org" was updated a month ago, and, so far, nobody complained > about it. So, I think it's a good time to discuss about what could be > done next. The lack of complaints is unlikely to mean that everybody tried it and found nothing to complain about. I haven't