Thanks for writing up your observation. It’s good to see that Org-transclusion is used.
I need to see what I can do – I’m a bit tied to other life priorities at the moment and don’t have much mental capacity to code a big chunk, but I will consider the use case you describe along with some other PRs slowly piling up.
This also feels like a defect (“bug”) that I should look into… Yes, it’s probably because of conflict between transcluded parts being read-only and the way org-metaup works but there might be a way to “fix” it – not sure if I should do it separately from a feature to remove the first headline title…
Thank you for your consideration. Rather than adding more work to your plate, I’m just keen to share my thoughts on how I am trying to use transclusion. I am still figuring out my workflow. I think it has a place but where exactly that is, and what it’s constraints are, is a work in progress. For example…
I am currently looking for a used car to puchase. I have notes on inspecting cars generally and notes on inspecting particular models of cars with their particular quirks. In my mind, it makes sense to take one document with me that outlines everything to check on this model of car I might buy, and to achieve this by transcluding parts of the general inspection document into the particular model document. In practice though… it’s not so clear and perhaps taking two documents and referring to both makes more sense timewise in this case.
However, I also have information on the cars that is not required for the inspection process itself. This info is more fundamental, like, “Don’t buy a model before 2006 as the motors were bad.” When I think about all these bits of info, it’s almost like the document I’m wanting to take to the inspection with me is a “virtual” doc; a document that exists as only/mainly a set of transclusions from the other underlying documents, rather than trying to transclude parts of one document into another. Perhaps transclusion to me is a way of combining info from a bunch of separate org-roam nodes into one “story” or document.
Copy and pasting has it’s place, but I’m sure that transclusion is a better solution for info that has a longer life time, or is serving a different purpose than the original notes themselves.
Currently I think my org-mode/org-roam notes use case is a bit outside the boundaries of what you’ve shown in your videos (still very impressive by the way), however I find myself coming back to your work repeatedly as the best solution so far.
These are my current thoughts. Love your work Nobiot. Thank you for your efforts.
Hi, I want to use org-transclusion for the specific case scenario of #+transclude: [[file:../../test/python-1.py::id-1234]] :lines 1-4 :src python, but with the addition of specifying a git revision. So I did M-: (require 'org-git-link), which is from old org-contrib, and which is mostly working, and I tried something like:
And that didn’t work out of the box.
It does work without the #+transclude directive.
Similarly, plain #+transclude: [[file:../../test/python-1.py::id-1234]] does work.
I really want to use org-transclusion for that specific case scenario of commenting snippets of code, with the code living in it’s own git repository, and of course source code is changing over time, so being able to target a specific revision is pivotal.
The error is No content found with "git:~/../../test/python-1.py::master@{2022-08-11 16:00}". Check the link at point 834, line 27
This is not implemented. I never knew of org-git-link. It looks like it will be possible by using org-git-link-open (not baremetal). It will require some code change to org-transclusion-src-lines. Would you like to try this? I could give you some ideas.
I can’t spend much time now: I am tied up with other priorities of my life until late this year
I would love to write my current development project in the literate style, and if I can do so in such a way that includes being able to use git links as mentioned above, I’d be thrilled!