subject:"Wave"

On 2010-04-14, Pavel Sanda wrote:
 Alan Tyree wrote:

 RCS is what I used for a long time before discovering the distributed
 version control systems. When using RCS you need either 1) a central
 server or 2) some system (like rsync) to keep two computers on the
 same page

 the point was not to propose rcs for the colaboration... but for
 private usage (and unless you have some bigger project with tons of
 external material) i find rcs to be very good and in some sense more
 convenient than proposed git...

I know RCS and even used it at some stage because it is (or was)
supported by LyX. However, 

* I don't like the additional files distributed over my file system

* I have some external material (not tons, but 10...100 scripts
  generating the plots I need in my work).
  
* I use git for other projects too.  

Günter

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

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.


Günter

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-15 Thread Typhoon

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:35:46 + (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
else.

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.

Cheers,
Alan


 
 
 Günter
 
 


-- 
Alan L Tyreehttp://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-15 Thread Abdelrazak Younes


On 04/15/2010 12:07 PM, Typhoon wrote:

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
else.


I think you are missing something and it's probably my fault. The idea 
of a portable document using a git repo is somewhat perpendicular to how 
many DVCS systems are supported by LyX. The idea behind a portable LyX 
document is that the user doesn't know which SCM he uses as LyX would 
take care of everything. So having your coauthor fluent in bazar rather 
than git is irrelevant.



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.


Sure, don't worry :-)

Abdel.

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-15 Thread Alan L Tyree

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:28:47 +0200
Abdelrazak Younes you...@lyx.org wrote:

 
 
 On 04/15/2010 12:07 PM, Typhoon wrote:
  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 else.
 
 I think you are missing something and it's probably my fault. The
 idea of a portable document using a git repo is somewhat
 perpendicular to how many DVCS systems are supported by LyX. The idea
 behind a portable LyX document is that the user doesn't know which
 SCM he uses as LyX would take care of everything. So having your
 coauthor fluent in bazar rather than git is irrelevant.

Hi Abdel,

You're right, I was confusing two separate issues. Not, I think, your
fault at all. 

And, whatever is used, the idea of a VC system as the portable format
seems brilliant.

Thanks for cleaning the fuzz out of my brain :-).

Cheers,
Alan

 
  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.
 
 Sure, don't worry :-)
 
 Abdel.
 
 


-- 
Alan L Tyreehttp://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

On 2010-04-14, Pavel Sanda wrote:
 Alan Tyree wrote:

 RCS is what I used for a long time before discovering the distributed
 version control systems. When using RCS you need either 1) a central
 server or 2) some system (like rsync) to keep two computers on the
 same page

 the point was not to propose rcs for the colaboration... but for
 private usage (and unless you have some bigger project with tons of
 external material) i find rcs to be very good and in some sense more
 convenient than proposed git...

I know RCS and even used it at some stage because it is (or was)
supported by LyX. However, 

* I don't like the additional files distributed over my file system

* I have some external material (not tons, but 10...100 scripts
  generating the plots I need in my work).
  
* I use git for other projects too.  

Günter

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

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.


Günter

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-15 Thread Typhoon

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:35:46 + (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
else.

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.

Cheers,
Alan


 
 
 Günter
 
 


-- 
Alan L Tyreehttp://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-15 Thread Abdelrazak Younes


On 04/15/2010 12:07 PM, Typhoon wrote:

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
else.


I think you are missing something and it's probably my fault. The idea 
of a portable document using a git repo is somewhat perpendicular to how 
many DVCS systems are supported by LyX. The idea behind a portable LyX 
document is that the user doesn't know which SCM he uses as LyX would 
take care of everything. So having your coauthor fluent in bazar rather 
than git is irrelevant.



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.


Sure, don't worry :-)

Abdel.

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-15 Thread Alan L Tyree

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:28:47 +0200
Abdelrazak Younes you...@lyx.org wrote:

 
 
 On 04/15/2010 12:07 PM, Typhoon wrote:
  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 else.
 
 I think you are missing something and it's probably my fault. The
 idea of a portable document using a git repo is somewhat
 perpendicular to how many DVCS systems are supported by LyX. The idea
 behind a portable LyX document is that the user doesn't know which
 SCM he uses as LyX would take care of everything. So having your
 coauthor fluent in bazar rather than git is irrelevant.

Hi Abdel,

You're right, I was confusing two separate issues. Not, I think, your
fault at all. 

And, whatever is used, the idea of a VC system as the portable format
seems brilliant.

Thanks for cleaning the fuzz out of my brain :-).

Cheers,
Alan

 
  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.
 
 Sure, don't worry :-)
 
 Abdel.
 
 


-- 
Alan L Tyreehttp://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

On 2010-04-14, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Alan Tyree wrote:

>> RCS is what I used for a long time before discovering the distributed
>> version control systems. When using RCS you need either 1) a central
>> server or 2) some system (like rsync) to keep two computers "on the
>> same page"

> the point was not to propose rcs for the colaboration... but for
> private usage (and unless you have some bigger project with tons of
> external material) i find rcs to be very good and in some sense more
> convenient than proposed git...

I know RCS and even used it at some stage because it is (or was)
supported by LyX. However, 

* I don't like the additional files distributed over my file system

* I have some external material (not tons, but 10...100 scripts
  generating the plots I need in my work).
  
* I use git for other projects too.  

Günter

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

On 2010-04-14, Typhoon wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:56:10 +0200
> Abdelrazak Younes  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.

Günter

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-15 Thread Typhoon

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 07:35:46 + (UTC)
Guenter Milde  wrote:

> On 2010-04-14, Typhoon wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:56:10 +0200
> > Abdelrazak Younes  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
else.

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.

Cheers,
Alan

> 
> 
> Günter
> 
> 

-- 
Alan L Tyreehttp://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-15 Thread Abdelrazak Younes


On 04/15/2010 12:07 PM, Typhoon wrote:

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
else.


I think you are missing something and it's probably my fault. The idea 
of a portable document using a git repo is somewhat perpendicular to how 
many DVCS systems are supported by LyX. The idea behind a "portable LyX 
document" is that the user doesn't know which SCM he uses as LyX would 
take care of everything. So having your coauthor fluent in bazar rather 
than git is irrelevant.



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.


Sure, don't worry :-)

Abdel.

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-15 Thread Alan L Tyree

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:28:47 +0200
Abdelrazak Younes  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 04/15/2010 12:07 PM, Typhoon wrote:
> >>> 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 else.
> 
> I think you are missing something and it's probably my fault. The
> idea of a portable document using a git repo is somewhat
> perpendicular to how many DVCS systems are supported by LyX. The idea
> behind a "portable LyX document" is that the user doesn't know which
> SCM he uses as LyX would take care of everything. So having your
> coauthor fluent in bazar rather than git is irrelevant.

Hi Abdel,

You're right, I was confusing two separate issues. Not, I think, your
fault at all. 

And, whatever is used, the idea of a VC system as the portable format
seems brilliant.

Thanks for cleaning the fuzz out of my brain :-).

Cheers,
Alan

> 
> > 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.
> 
> Sure, don't worry :-)
> 
> Abdel.
> 
> 


-- 
Alan L Tyreehttp://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-14 Thread Guenter Milde

On 2010-04-13, Typhoon wrote:
 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:02:23 -0400
 rgheck rgh...@bobjweil.com wrote:

 On 04/13/2010 10:43 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
  rgheck wrote:

  I also think that VC probably provides all you need for
  collaboration (although a closer integration of VC, comparision and
  CT would be cool).

Also, a version control (VC) system provides at the same time the time
machine to keep track of the evolution of your documents.

  For me, a main obstacle is the lack of a suitable web service. 

 What about using a distributed version control system? I use Bazaar to
 collaborate with one of my colleagues. We meed every so often to do a
 double merge and it works really well. No central server is needed,
 although if you have one available then you can use it like svn.

I use Git to keep a local VC repository so I strongly favour the option
to support distributed version control from LyX.

Günter

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

Guenter Milde wrote:
  What about using a distributed version control system? I use Bazaar to
  collaborate with one of my colleagues. We meed every so often to do a
  double merge and it works really well. No central server is needed,
  although if you have one available then you can use it like svn.
 
 I use Git to keep a local VC repository so I strongly favour the option
 to support distributed version control from LyX.

are you aware of rcs?
pavel

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-14 Thread Alan Tyree

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:

 Guenter Milde wrote:
   What about using a distributed version control system? I use Bazaar to
   collaborate with one of my colleagues. We meed every so often to do a
   double merge and it works really well. No central server is needed,
   although if you have one available then you can use it like svn.
 
  I use Git to keep a local VC repository so I strongly favour the option
  to support distributed version control from LyX.

 are you aware of rcs?


RCS is what I used for a long time before discovering the distributed
version control systems. When using RCS you need either 1) a central server
or 2) some system (like rsync) to keep two computers on the same page

Distributed systems eliminate the need for a central server (although you
can use one if available). They also **greatly** reduce the potential for
accidental overwrites if you are trying to sync two computers.

I used Bazaar because (at least at the time) git didn't play too well with
windows and my collaborator was using Windows. I believe that Mercurial is
as good, and probably git is too if the windows problem has been solved. I
like Bazaar since it is written in Python and will run on a warm toaster if
necessary - but no need to start a religious war here!

Here is a link to the workflow of using a DVCS with two users (even if
both of the users are yourself working on a different machine:
http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/bzr.2.1/en/user-guide/index.html

See, in particular, the Working with peers section.

I think it's great for collaboration, even when the collaboration is with
yourself.

Cheers,
Alan

 pavel




-- 
Alan L Tyreehttp://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

Alan Tyree wrote:
 RCS is what I used for a long time before discovering the distributed
 version control systems. When using RCS you need either 1) a central server
 or 2) some system (like rsync) to keep two computers on the same page

the point was not to propose rcs for the colaboration... but for private
usage (and unless you have some bigger project with tons of external material)
i find rcs to be very good and in some sense more convenient than proposed
git...

pavel

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)


On 04/13/2010 04:43 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:

rgheck wrote:

It'd be nice to hear precisely what people would want that version
control does not provide. I have a hard time myself seeing why it is any
more than an isn't that cool feature for two people simultaneously to
edit a single document. I.e., fun, but hardly revolutionary as far as
actual productivity goes, at least for the sort of work most LyX users
actually do. There's no doubt that LyXs' VC support could be improved,
and it has been in some significant ways for 2.0, so we'd happily hear
suggestions about that, too.


I also think that VC probably provides all you need for collaboration
(although a closer integration of VC, comparision and CT would be cool).

For me, a main obstacle is the lack of a suitable web service. My Faculty does
not provide svn or other VC repositories, and I did not find a suitable
service on the web yet, where I can savely store my data in such a way that
only selected people can access it. But maybe I just didn't search long
enough.


You don't need it!

git (or any distributed scm) can do it for you. You can create a git 
repo for one specific LyX document (including all children and graphics) 
and use that as the transport medium. If you can clone over the web then 
fine (git supports a number of protocols icluding http); if not you can 
just as well send either the 'git diff' output or the full git repo by 
mail. At the other end, your co-writer would merge your diff or a local 
copy of your git repo and merge it with his own git repo.


As I have once outlined in the devel list, it should be possible to 
streamline the entire process within LyX. This would become the often 
requested portable LyX format, except that this file would just be a git 
repo. This way, you would have access immediately to all elements of 
your documents (including graphics) but also to the full history of the 
document. This can of collaboration tool would be unbeatable if you ask 
me. Now, we just need to find someone who has the time and energy to 
implement this :-)


Abdel.

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-14 Thread Jose Quesada

Great post Abdel.

The idea of sharing repos as a portable document format is great. The only
issue I have with git is that it depends on a mixture of C, shell and perl
scripts that make it hardly portable. But I could be wrong. Assuming a
working python on the system is not that bad (OSX, *BSDs and linuxes most
have them). And python is already a requirement for LyX right? So my vote
goes to mercurial.
Best,
-Jose

Jose Quesada, PhD.
Max Planck Institute,
Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition,
Berlin
http://www.josequesada.name/
http://twitter.com/Quesada


On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Abdelrazak Younes you...@lyx.org wrote:

 On 04/13/2010 04:43 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:

 rgheck wrote:

 It'd be nice to hear precisely what people would want that version
 control does not provide. I have a hard time myself seeing why it is any
 more than an isn't that cool feature for two people simultaneously to
 edit a single document. I.e., fun, but hardly revolutionary as far as
 actual productivity goes, at least for the sort of work most LyX users
 actually do. There's no doubt that LyXs' VC support could be improved,
 and it has been in some significant ways for 2.0, so we'd happily hear
 suggestions about that, too.


 I also think that VC probably provides all you need for collaboration
 (although a closer integration of VC, comparision and CT would be cool).

 For me, a main obstacle is the lack of a suitable web service. My Faculty
 does
 not provide svn or other VC repositories, and I did not find a suitable
 service on the web yet, where I can savely store my data in such a way
 that
 only selected people can access it. But maybe I just didn't search long
 enough.


 You don't need it!

 git (or any distributed scm) can do it for you. You can create a git repo
 for one specific LyX document (including all children and graphics) and use
 that as the transport medium. If you can clone over the web then fine (git
 supports a number of protocols icluding http); if not you can just as well
 send either the 'git diff' output or the full git repo by mail. At the other
 end, your co-writer would merge your diff or a local copy of your git repo
 and merge it with his own git repo.

 As I have once outlined in the devel list, it should be possible to
 streamline the entire process within LyX. This would become the often
 requested portable LyX format, except that this file would just be a git
 repo. This way, you would have access immediately to all elements of your
 documents (including graphics) but also to the full history of the document.
 This can of collaboration tool would be unbeatable if you ask me. Now, we
 just need to find someone who has the time and energy to implement this :-)

 Abdel.

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)


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. The 
only issue I have with git is that it depends on a mixture of C, shell 
and perl scripts that make it hardly portable. But I could be wrong.


For what we need, only the compiled c program is required. But in any 
case msysgit runs pretty fine under Windows and git has even been ported 
to MSVC nowadays.


Assuming a working python on the system is not that bad (OSX, *BSDs 
and linuxes most have them). And python is already a requirement for 
LyX right? So my vote goes to mercurial.


We are not at the voting step just now, this is all vaporware we are 
talking about ;-)


AFAIK mercurial also rely on some compiled c-code but I can be wrong.

In any case, the goal would be to rely on an installed git or mercurial, 
not to redistribute them I guess. Under Windows, distributing git or 
mercurial would just be a packaging issue, nothing else.


Abdel.

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-14 Thread Typhoon

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.
  The only issue I have with git is that it depends on a mixture of
  C, shell and perl scripts that make it hardly portable. But I could
  be wrong.
 
 For what we need, only the compiled c program is required. But in any 
 case msysgit runs pretty fine under Windows and git has even been
 ported to MSVC nowadays.
 
  Assuming a working python on the system is not that bad (OSX, *BSDs 
  and linuxes most have them). And python is already a requirement
  for LyX right? So my vote goes to mercurial.
 
 We are not at the voting step just now, this is all vaporware we are 
 talking about ;-)
 
 AFAIK mercurial also rely on some compiled c-code but I can be wrong.
 
 In any case, the goal would be to rely on an installed git or
 mercurial, not to redistribute them I guess. Under Windows,
 distributing git or mercurial would just be a packaging issue,
 nothing else.

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. The LyX side of it doesn't
need to do everything. Again using Emacs as the model, it allows
commits and reversions, shows annotations and other forms of history,
takes snapshots -- all through a common interface.

If it isn't necessary, I don't think that LyX should lock into one
system. Thinking particularly of collaboration, most of our
collaborators are less flexible and less informed than the members of
this list.

Cheers,
Alan

 
 Abdel.
 
 


-- 
Alan L Tyreehttp://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-14 Thread Jose Quesada

For those looking for private repos:
blog.assembla.com/assemblablog/tabid/12618/bid/12217/April-14-Repo-Blitz-Free-unlimited-SVN-and-GIT-and-much-more.aspx

http://blog.assembla.com/assemblablog/tabid/12618/bid/12217/April-14-Repo-Blitz-Free-unlimited-SVN-and-GIT-and-much-more.aspxgood
move assembla. this is a good move:
We are now offering free, privately permissioned, encryption enabled,
unlimited user, full gigabyte, commercial quality subversion and git
repositories, and that is just the beginning.

beats github (zero private repos for free) and bitbucket (one)

Best,
-Jose

Jose Quesada, PhD.
Max Planck Institute,
Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition,
Berlin
http://www.josequesada.name/
http://twitter.com/Quesada

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Typhoon typh...@aanet.com.au 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.
The only issue I have with git is that it depends on a mixture of
C, shell and perl scripts that make it hardly portable. But I could
be wrong.

For what we need, only the compiled c program is required. But in any
case msysgit runs pretty fine under Windows and git has even been
ported to MSVC nowadays.

Assuming a working python on the system is not that bad (OSX, *BSDs
and linuxes most have them). And python is already a requirement
for LyX right? So my vote goes to mercurial.

We are not at the voting step just now, this is all vaporware we are
talking about ;-)

AFAIK mercurial also rely on some compiled c-code but I can be wrong.

In any case, the goal would be to rely on an installed git or
mercurial, not to redistribute them I guess. Under Windows,
distributing git or mercurial would just be a packaging issue,
nothing else.

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. The LyX side of it doesn't
need to do everything. Again using Emacs as the model, it allows
commits and reversions, shows annotations and other forms of history,
takes snapshots -- all through a common interface.

If it isn't necessary, I don't think that LyX should lock into one
system. Thinking particularly of collaboration, most of our
collaborators are less flexible and less informed than the members of
this list.

Cheers,
Alan

Abdel.

--
Alan L Tyreehttp://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel: 04 2748 6206

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-14 Thread Guenter Milde

On 2010-04-13, Typhoon wrote:
 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:02:23 -0400
 rgheck rgh...@bobjweil.com wrote:

 On 04/13/2010 10:43 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
  rgheck wrote:

  I also think that VC probably provides all you need for
  collaboration (although a closer integration of VC, comparision and
  CT would be cool).

Also, a version control (VC) system provides at the same time the time
machine to keep track of the evolution of your documents.

  For me, a main obstacle is the lack of a suitable web service. 

 What about using a distributed version control system? I use Bazaar to
 collaborate with one of my colleagues. We meed every so often to do a
 double merge and it works really well. No central server is needed,
 although if you have one available then you can use it like svn.

I use Git to keep a local VC repository so I strongly favour the option
to support distributed version control from LyX.

Günter

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

Guenter Milde wrote:
  What about using a distributed version control system? I use Bazaar to
  collaborate with one of my colleagues. We meed every so often to do a
  double merge and it works really well. No central server is needed,
  although if you have one available then you can use it like svn.
 
 I use Git to keep a local VC repository so I strongly favour the option
 to support distributed version control from LyX.

are you aware of rcs?
pavel

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-14 Thread Alan Tyree

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:

 Guenter Milde wrote:
   What about using a distributed version control system? I use Bazaar to
   collaborate with one of my colleagues. We meed every so often to do a
   double merge and it works really well. No central server is needed,
   although if you have one available then you can use it like svn.
 
  I use Git to keep a local VC repository so I strongly favour the option
  to support distributed version control from LyX.

 are you aware of rcs?


RCS is what I used for a long time before discovering the distributed
version control systems. When using RCS you need either 1) a central server
or 2) some system (like rsync) to keep two computers on the same page

Distributed systems eliminate the need for a central server (although you
can use one if available). They also **greatly** reduce the potential for
accidental overwrites if you are trying to sync two computers.

I used Bazaar because (at least at the time) git didn't play too well with
windows and my collaborator was using Windows. I believe that Mercurial is
as good, and probably git is too if the windows problem has been solved. I
like Bazaar since it is written in Python and will run on a warm toaster if
necessary - but no need to start a religious war here!

Here is a link to the workflow of using a DVCS with two users (even if
both of the users are yourself working on a different machine:
http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/bzr.2.1/en/user-guide/index.html

See, in particular, the Working with peers section.

I think it's great for collaboration, even when the collaboration is with
yourself.

Cheers,
Alan

 pavel




-- 
Alan L Tyreehttp://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan
Tel:  04 2748 6206

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

Alan Tyree wrote:
 RCS is what I used for a long time before discovering the distributed
 version control systems. When using RCS you need either 1) a central server
 or 2) some system (like rsync) to keep two computers on the same page

the point was not to propose rcs for the colaboration... but for private
usage (and unless you have some bigger project with tons of external material)
i find rcs to be very good and in some sense more convenient than proposed
git...

pavel

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)


On 04/13/2010 04:43 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:

rgheck wrote:

It'd be nice to hear precisely what people would want that version
control does not provide. I have a hard time myself seeing why it is any
more than an isn't that cool feature for two people simultaneously to
edit a single document. I.e., fun, but hardly revolutionary as far as
actual productivity goes, at least for the sort of work most LyX users
actually do. There's no doubt that LyXs' VC support could be improved,
and it has been in some significant ways for 2.0, so we'd happily hear
suggestions about that, too.


I also think that VC probably provides all you need for collaboration
(although a closer integration of VC, comparision and CT would be cool).

For me, a main obstacle is the lack of a suitable web service. My Faculty does
not provide svn or other VC repositories, and I did not find a suitable
service on the web yet, where I can savely store my data in such a way that
only selected people can access it. But maybe I just didn't search long
enough.


You don't need it!

git (or any distributed scm) can do it for you. You can create a git 
repo for one specific LyX document (including all children and graphics) 
and use that as the transport medium. If you can clone over the web then 
fine (git supports a number of protocols icluding http); if not you can 
just as well send either the 'git diff' output or the full git repo by 
mail. At the other end, your co-writer would merge your diff or a local 
copy of your git repo and merge it with his own git repo.


As I have once outlined in the devel list, it should be possible to 
streamline the entire process within LyX. This would become the often 
requested portable LyX format, except that this file would just be a git 
repo. This way, you would have access immediately to all elements of 
your documents (including graphics) but also to the full history of the 
document. This can of collaboration tool would be unbeatable if you ask 
me. Now, we just need to find someone who has the time and energy to 
implement this :-)


Abdel.

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)

2010-04-14 Thread Jose Quesada

Great post Abdel.

The idea of sharing repos as a portable document format is great. The only
issue I have with git is that it depends on a mixture of C, shell and perl
scripts that make it hardly portable. But I could be wrong. Assuming a
working python on the system is not that bad (OSX, *BSDs and linuxes most
have them). And python is already a requirement for LyX right? So my vote
goes to mercurial.
Best,
-Jose

Jose Quesada, PhD.
Max Planck Institute,
Center for Adaptive Behavior and Cognition,
Berlin
http://www.josequesada.name/
http://twitter.com/Quesada


On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Abdelrazak Younes you...@lyx.org wrote:

 On 04/13/2010 04:43 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:

 rgheck wrote:

 It'd be nice to hear precisely what people would want that version
 control does not provide. I have a hard time myself seeing why it is any
 more than an isn't that cool feature for two people simultaneously to
 edit a single document. I.e., fun, but hardly revolutionary as far as
 actual productivity goes, at least for the sort of work most LyX users
 actually do. There's no doubt that LyXs' VC support could be improved,
 and it has been in some significant ways for 2.0, so we'd happily hear
 suggestions about that, too.


 I also think that VC probably provides all you need for collaboration
 (although a closer integration of VC, comparision and CT would be cool).

 For me, a main obstacle is the lack of a suitable web service. My Faculty
 does
 not provide svn or other VC repositories, and I did not find a suitable
 service on the web yet, where I can savely store my data in such a way
 that
 only selected people can access it. But maybe I just didn't search long
 enough.


 You don't need it!

 git (or any distributed scm) can do it for you. You can create a git repo
 for one specific LyX document (including all children and graphics) and use
 that as the transport medium. If you can clone over the web then fine (git
 supports a number of protocols icluding http); if not you can just as well
 send either the 'git diff' output or the full git repo by mail. At the other
 end, your co-writer would merge your diff or a local copy of your git repo
 and merge it with his own git repo.

 As I have once outlined in the devel list, it should be possible to
 streamline the entire process within LyX. This would become the often
 requested portable LyX format, except that this file would just be a git
 repo. This way, you would have access immediately to all elements of your
 documents (including graphics) but also to the full history of the document.
 This can of collaboration tool would be unbeatable if you ask me. Now, we
 just need to find someone who has the time and energy to implement this :-)

 Abdel.

Re: new google docs interface, with wave backend. (collaboration trends)