From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rasmus Subject: Re: [PATCH][ox-koma-letter]: sender, email and cleanup Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 16:51:44 +0200 Message-ID: <87li71iykf.fsf@pank.eu> References: <87hahrmabq.fsf@pank.eu> <20130525170322.GA734@kenny.local> <87bo7zlzln.fsf_-_@pank.eu> <20130526105400.GA716@kenny.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36441) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UgcIj-0001N8-Er for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 26 May 2013 10:52:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UgcIe-0004d9-CP for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 26 May 2013 10:52:01 -0400 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:50965) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UgcIe-0004d2-5J for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 26 May 2013 10:51:56 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UgcIc-0000dz-WD for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 26 May 2013 16:51:55 +0200 Received: from dynamic-adsl-94-39-217-165.clienti.tiscali.it ([94.39.217.165]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 16:51:54 +0200 Received: from rasmus by dynamic-adsl-94-39-217-165.clienti.tiscali.it with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 16:51:54 +0200 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 > As a side note, I had quite a few problems working with your patches. > None of them applied against master, or against my latest patch as you > claimed. I had to merge in some of the changes of 0002 by hand. I > suggest that we nail down the workings of AUTHOR and EMAIL first (should > be done now) and then start with clean separate branches branched from > master for your subject and heading code. We could even use github for > this, what do you think? . . . Also, a separate place/branch would allow for a common TODO file to keep a record of what we discuss and more importantly what we've concluded on subject X, Y, Z which otherwise might be forgotten. It could also hold a working copy of Viktor's tutorial which then could be updated more frequently. Lot's of explanation (which is my fault) is now hidden in the commit messages. –Rasmus PS: What would be even better would be to keep the source and tutorial in the same file encoring updating. Of course, I'd want the docstrings to be the main documentation still. E.g. using Org-babel or "some-other-mechanism". E.g. paredit generates info automatically.