On 18.10.2013 23:35, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Tomas,
>
> * Tomas Vondra (tv@fuzzy.cz) wrote:
>> My impression from that thread was that one of the requirements is
>> reasonable versioning / diff support, and AFAIK that's not a good
>> match for any GUI-based product. So while I like dia and I used it
>> for drawing the charts I submitted today, I don't think it works
>> with this (quite reasonable) requirement.
>
> I'm not sure why you feel that way wrt dia..? As was pointed out in
> the thread, if you decompress the dia, it's pretty reasonable XML and
> diffs, etc, will work reasonably well with it.
>
>>> Also, for my part, I'd suggest putting it on the wiki initially
>>> anyway, as then it can be seen directly (load it as a png or
>>> what-have-you) and it becomes immediately available to users.
>>> The .dia should also be on the wiki, of course, and then included
>>> in the PG tree eventually if it's added as part of the official
>>> docs.
>>
>> No problem with that, but I'd like to know in advance if we're
>> willing to put that into the docs / under what requirements etc.
>> Otherwise it might result in a major effort just to get it from
>> wiki into docs later.
>
> I can't see it being a major effort to get it from the wiki into the
> docs, though perhaps I'm being a bit over-optomistic wrt that.
> Still, I'd much rather have it somewhere than not have it at all...
I meant something a bit different. Imagine I start with a simple chart
but spend a lot of time improving it over time (adding comments,
formattting) only to find out later I need to redo that from scratch in
a different tool. Wouldn't that be easier to start with the target tool
in the first place?
Tomas
