Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:25 am Post
Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:51 pm Post
devinganger wrote:davecake wrote:Not a total redesign to be a tool that has a different focus, just an acceptance that edit conflicts are not just a mistake to be avoided that can be handled as a clumsy error, but rather a regular thing that happens and should have some tools for it. That literally would be enough for me to use it for collaboration effectively.
Perhaps once 3.0 is out cross-platform and stabilized, KB might have time to consider the minimum viable product for such a feature that would work with the Scrivener philosophy -- but to do so, one would need a realistic set of scenarios painted out, not just the "it needs to be like Google Docs" that most people lead with.
What would such a conflict resolution experience in Scrivener look like to you?
Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:56 pm Post
Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:02 pm Post
root wrote:As for complexity and resources, Google Docs is actually a really interesting case. Here Katharine is very much off with facts, because it wasn't 'the immense resources of Google' that built the collaboration feature. A team smaller than Scrivener's developed something called Etherpad which had non of the font et cetera glitch of Docs, but live collaboration.
Sat Feb 16, 2019 10:41 pm Post
root wrote:Just put it on the backlog and be honest about when it's picked up into sprints or not. We can wait, as long as we know it's in the works.
Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:26 pm Post
root wrote:Also very entertaining with the Lambacopter: Such a funny metaphor, but a totally flawed argument in this context.
root wrote:As more of the posters seem to be Minimum Viable Software Developers as opposed to writers
root wrote:Most writing outside of the lonely researcher or the ditto poet is a highly collaborative activity. In fiction we collaborate weekly with our editor, in tv drama I collaborate daily with episode cowriters and directors.
Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:26 am Post
Sun Feb 17, 2019 8:34 am Post
Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:57 pm Post
mbbntu wrote:"when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way.
Sun Feb 17, 2019 6:20 pm Post
kewms wrote:mbbntu wrote:"when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way.
There's also the No True Scotsman fallacy, in which one decides that people who have different writing requirements aren't "real writers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:10 pm Post
Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:58 pm Post
JimRac wrote:There were a few references in root's post to GIT, which made me curious.
Is there anyone here who has successfully and regularly used GIT to collaborate with others in Scrivener? Or does anyone here know anyone who has?
If Scrivener collaboration using GIT actually works, why aren't all the people for whom collaboration is a requirement actively using it?
I don't have a need for collaboration now, but I can foresee a time when I might. If GIT works with Scrivener, that's wonderful, I'll have a look at it if the need arises. But if GIT doesn't work with Scrivener, then why is it being brought into the conversation?
In total there are 11 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 11 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1048 on Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:07 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests