Re: org-annotate/collaboration?

[Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es>]

>>> "Eric" == Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

   > Matt Price <moptop99@gmail.com> writes:
   >> Does anyone use org-annotate actively? I'm wondering what your
   >> workflow is, how you incorporate comments, etc.  

   > I wrote it, and I don't use it that much. I do use it for quick
   > notes-to-self when writing, but footnotes do the job just as well.

   >> I'm hoping to embark on a book project with a colleague. I would like
   >> to use org-mode if I can, but I need to get a sense of the
   >> collaboration workflow. When you work on projects together, do you use
   >> annotations? Or git pull requests? If the latter, od you use any
   >> filters, or any magit tricks, to approve or modify suggested changes
   >> chunk by chunk?  

   > It's a huge problem, and one that org-annotate isn't going to solve. I
   > do a lot of manuscript editing, and passing files around, and have only
   > barely gotten some people to accept my "weird" workflow, which is to
   > send them a clean version of an edited file, and along with that an HTML
   > file containing htmlized word-diff output, where the insertions and
   > deletions are colorized. They make further edits on the clean copy, and
   > I do another go-around. It's a huge pain.

I did (and still do) the same, using latex and latexdiff, but found out
that a better solution is to use mercurial and bitbucket (I presume git
should be fine as well), since one of my collaborators agree to use it
as well. This is quite a relief to the former method relying on external
tools and email.  

    -  Usually instead of comments I use issuesin bitbucket.
    -  hg diff is not perfect but a good first approximation.