Talk:LaTeX/Collaborative Writing of LaTeX Documents

git and mercurial
Hi, this is really a right use case for collaborative writing. However, now Subversion isn't the most innovative tool for this. I am currently holding an SVN repository for whole my scientific work (articles, PhD Thesis, F77 codes, calculation results, etc.) One major issue really annoying with SVN is the requirement to work online. You can't commit/diff/log/etc while being offline (unless you are taking your repository with you). This is not an issue in the next generation version control systems - distributed version control systems. As examples, see GIT, Bazaar. I think that it at least can be mentioned in this article.
 * Yeah, I'd be interested to see an article about using LaTeX with Git. Wouldn't hurt to diversify this article--Snaip (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am about to write my PhD thesis (energy modeling) using git. I used subversion for my MSc thesis.  Some material on LaTeX + git would be great.  However the current page looks very polished so I would suggest a new page.  Would be useful to include mercurial (hg) too. Robbiemorrison (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the current page can be made much more encompassing without loss of precision. There really isn't a difference between any of these systems (git, hg, or svn) in how they track changes, more in how the user accesses those changes. Most (if not all) of the 'rules' presented about how to use LaTeX with SVN apply equally to either of the other systems. I feel a specific manual of how to use each system (how to commit, patch, diff etc.) is best left as a link to another resource. Glosser.ca (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding git, I would put in a strong recommendation for the  package to integrate git and LaTeX. Robbiemorrison (discuss • contribs) 06:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with a more neutral documentation of VCS. This whole page sounds like an ad for SVN. It's not really in favor of the book, especially in these times where SVN popularity is collapsing. And yes, this is no place for a VCS tutorial, only the basic commands for syncing and diffing should bo pointed out. It is really time for big changes in this document. --Ambrevar (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

recommendations
We should mention latexdiff somewhere.

The recommendations for line-length seem conflicting and unjustified. Why would you want to have everyone breaking lines at 80 characters? Works best to have paragraphs as single lines, then the user's editor (whatever it is - vim/kile etc) can visually break the lines appropriately for display only.
 * The reason for that is that it simplifies the conflict handling when using revision control that's based on diff. However I personally don't see this as a problem, if two people have a conflict in a paragraph, I think it's best that the whole paragraph gets reviewed anyway. Line-only conflicts might cause structure errors more easily. Well, just a personal opinion. --Snaip (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

noosphere and planetmath
I would recommend to mention noosphere which is the underlying software of the planetmath project. . Oub (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC):

Etherpad service
Although the original service has been discontinued, a number of equivalent sites have been created - see http://etherpad.org/ for details. Recent Runes (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

trackchanges
Anyone using trackchanges? I just started and it seems handy for collaborative work, especially with svn. 68omalley (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

WorkingWiki
I would like to mention WorkingWiki, a free software package that implements collaborative editing of LaTeX documents in MediaWiki wikis, including full previewing and use of multiple interdependent source files. - (WorkingWiki author) Worden.lee (discuss • contribs) 06:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Updating article for PracTeX
The editor of the PracTeX journal, Lance Carnes, asked me whether I am interested in updating my PracTeX article (on which this wikibook is based on) for a new special issue of the PracTeX journal. Is anyone interested in doing this together with me? If yes, please send me an e-mail (see http://www.arne-henningsen.name/). Cheers, Arne.

Collaborative online editing
Should this section (or a new section) cover collaborative online editing? I am thinking of and any similar approaches (hosted and/or open source code) Jodi.a.schneider (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ShareLaTeX
 * Papereria
 * Overleaf

how to contribute
The discussions mentioned (2010) several aspects which still are not included.


 * trackchanges
 * mercurial
 * latexdiff.
 * latexdiff has been mentioned but not using a VC system.
 * the latex style todonotes is also helpful.

I have used mercurial for collaboration since 2015 and I am quite pleased with bitbucket. So I would just add this information somehow, can I just start?

Oub (discuss • contribs) 20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure, add the information. --Johannes Bo (discuss • contribs) 07:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Planned changes
Hi

There are several issues I want to change


 * Bitbucket dropped mercurial support, so the alternatives are:
 * 1) Use  the hg-git plugin
 * 2) Switch to Helix
 * I also would like to enhance the information about online editors, especially
 * 1) their abilities to connect to github
 * 2) Their pricing models
 * Add an introduction of why to use a version control system.
 * And finally I find the section title Subversion really makes the difference a bit too much propaganda. What's about The workflow using subversion

Any opinions?