I need input from folks who may have previously argued for inclusion of org-roam-bibtex in the biblio module. Since those conversations began, a lot has changed in the emacs bibliographic landscape, and in org.
Should we include citar-org-roam instead?
- yes, add it now!
- add it, but only once it includes user-defined capture templates
- don’t add it
- Originally designed to integrate org-ref and bibtex-completion (and still depends on this).
- Also now supports org-cite.
- Allows user-defined capture templates.
- Current total LOC ~3000.
- Designed in conjunction with citar to provide an ideal note API (the new API allows deeper integration not possible before).
- Only supports native org-cite citations, and citar only depends on parsebib directly.
- Does not yet support user-defined capture templates, but we plan to add it, so long as we keep code complexity down.
- There are other related note packages that support the new citar note API, including denote-citar (though this still needs work) and zk.
- Available now on MELPA.
- Current total LOC ~150.
Note: these are not truly mutually-exclusive options. You can configure COR to use ORB for creating new notes, for example.
If we add it, we could do now, or wait until we have the template support.
If we do add it, should it be default with the