On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Eric Schulte
<address@hidden> wrote:
Nick Dokos <
address@hidden> writes:
> Nick Dokos <
address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
>> Can we please back off this path?
>
> In order to prevent confusion or needless argument: the path I think we
> should back off of is the committing of these changes to master - I think
> the work should be done in a branch and cooked thoroughly before merging
> it to master.
>
Partly agree here - I was bitten by the changes, and have suspended work on one project until this issue stabilizes - I do not want to change my files after each change.
I would agree that these changes should be happening in branches if the
problems were technical, however the issues that need to be addressed
are social issues of consensus, and for better or worse pushing changes
to the master branch is the best way to alert all interested actors and
begin the consensus-building process.
If these changes had been pushed up to a branch they would be sitting
happily in that branch with no-one noticing or objecting. They had been
discussed at length on list before their implementation and commitance,
but this most recent round of discussion was caused by a push to the
master branch.
You are definitely right about that - but it is kind of forcing the issue on to users after telling them they should use git as org is very dynamic, which is a risky business, as it might put users of - consider a new org user who realizes that regularly things are changing which affect him, and he / she has to change aspects of their org files. I would say it is a double edged sword.
This is also after all the development repository, and while I do try
very hard never to break this head of this repository at the same time I
think it is an acceptable place to try out new functionality.
Again - true, but it is always recommended on the org-list to use the git repo, as it contains all bug fixes.
>
> I did not mean to imply (although I think one could easily get that impression
> from my mail) backing off the property implementation (despite my personal
> reservations about that).
>
OK, good, because I *do* think that properties are a natural fit for
specifying code block parameters. The use of subtree properties has
already proven itself, and file-wide properties are a natural extension
(much more natural than the introduction of a #+BABEL: header argument).
Then one should possibly also think of merging #+LATEX into #+PROPERTY - which I think would make it more consistent (and this is a serious suggestion).
So: all file-wide properties, #+PROPERTIES is used.
What would be really important, is to have one page on worg, on which this process is documented - i.e. how files need to be changed, to be used with which version of org. I definitely have no idea, how I have to modify my files at the moment (there was the discussion abour source_name, name, ... and then the #+PROPERTY - I hope I haven't missed anything?). As I said - I have the luck, that I can wait until it stabilizes (at least I hope) - but a regularly updated summary with changes would be very welcome (and I guess I can speak for many org users).
Even if this step is painful for many (especially the ones not to familiar with the inner workings of org and babel (this definitely includes me)), I am sure that the best solution will be found (hopefully soon) and we will have a better and stronger org-mode at hand.
Cheers,
Rainer
While there is certainly some pain in this process I think it is nailing
down both the needs for code block properties as well as the scope of
what is and is not desirable functionality for properties in general.
Best -- Eric
>
> Nick