From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suvayu Ali Subject: Re: Using Emacs, Org-mode and R for Research Writing in Social Sciences Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:19:35 +0200 Message-ID: <20140514141935.GK2365@chitra.no-ip.org> References: <20140512132628.GE2684@chitra.no-ip.org> <2EADA89A-949A-4C38-83D6-AD71137E2F21@agrarianresearch.org> <4EAA0890-F121-49D9-B643-9891204F43E5@agrarianresearch.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37503) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wka23-0004ph-Sa for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 14 May 2014 10:19:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wka20-0002A1-2G for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 14 May 2014 10:19:43 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-x234.google.com ([2a00:1450:4013:c00::234]:51449) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wka1z-00029Z-SO for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 14 May 2014 10:19:40 -0400 Received: by mail-ee0-f52.google.com with SMTP id e53so1403628eek.25 for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 07:19:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chitra.no-ip.org ([2001:610:120:3001:2ad2:44ff:fe4a:b029]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 4sm5424619eeq.33.2014.05.14.07.19.36 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 May 2014 07:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EAA0890-F121-49D9-B643-9891204F43E5@agrarianresearch.org> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hi Vikas, On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 08:40:13PM +0200, Vikas Rawal wrote: > > > > It seems safer/efficient to focus on making modular documentation that > > is the definitive *best*/*right* way (and *best* explained) to do > > something, and then to link to that prolifically. > > > > Your points are very valid and expressed convincingly. > > Writing this document was a result of, first and foremost, a personal urge to write it, and secondly, in view of very specific use cases (my graduate students, to whom I wanted to provide a one-stop shop, before they explore rest of the stuff). > > That said, your arguments that it is not optimal to include such a document as part of documentation on orgmode.org is perhaps right. I can see that maintaining modular non-repetitive content is easier. Long-term maintenance of documentation should be an important concern for something that is under heavy development. > > Unless others feel differently, I would let the document float around the cyberspace, on my personal website and on github, for anyone to discover and use. I hate a good resource getting lost in the Internet. So I would like to suggest you make a shorter version for Worg, just focusing on the "producing a complete document part": R, ESS, pandoc, and all. Of course that requires more of your time and effort. So how about using Worg as it is meant to be, copy paste the relevant sections into worg and collaboratively trim it down to shape? If people think that is a good idea, I could give this a first shot sometime next week. Cheers, -- Suvayu Open source is the future. It sets us free.