4 ms·
I'm familiar with similar workflows. Last week, I edited via a (private) Github repo with a scientist client who use Emacs/ org-mode/ ediff, authoring .org fi
by chalst 13y ago
I'm familiar with similar workflows. Last week, I edited via a (private) Github repo with a scientist client who use Emacs/ org-mode/ ediff, authoring .org files, editing using Git staging to create change sets and inline \NB[]{} commands to annotate changes, and ediff/git-merge to step through and resolve changes.
Some observations:
1.Ediff is a nice tool to use for resolving Git conflicts;
2. Org mode works very well with this workflow, provided you use one paragraph per Unix line;
3. Latex generation can be very nice from org-mode sources, and the org-mode -> Latex exporter allows a nicer separation of content from presentation than you get with vanilla Latex.
I'd love to hear of anyone who has success with a similar, but vi-based workflow.
- cauthonLuck 13y agoI use a similar setup with vim+latex+git for chemistry articles. It works amazing for me. I feel like it is the most powerful presentation setup and most efficient editing setup currently available. I break sentences by ending with two spaces. (this doesn't matter since Latex is markup) The only issue arises when ideas span across multiple sentences, but I believe there is a flag for controlling the number of lines around a diff. (sorry, I'm new to git) But this sort of proves the point that an easy wrapper for git should be created for scientific writing. The two main problems I have are: 1. adoption by collaborators (they can't surmount the learning curve) 2. diffing sentences is very different from lines of code
- chalst 13y agoTypical Org-mode code diffs better than typical Latex code. This is a serious argument in favour of authoring in Org-mode and using its Latex export facility.