Improve sharing: Store serialization settings within the bibtex file

[koppor]

JabRef is able to sort the .bib file according to a configuration. When users with different configuration options check in their .bib file into version control, the files have textual diffeences without any content difference.

I propose that JabRef writes its serialization settings into the bibtex file at each save. This ensures that the serialization options are always met. The other option is that JabRef asks the user whether he wants to prepare the .bib file for sharing. If not, JabRef stores the filename in its preferences and never asks the user again.

This covers at least

• entry sorting (alphabetically using the author, sorting by the bibtex key, or no sorting, just adding entries at the end)
• format of each entry (see Define optimal serialization format and variations (dropping or reviving the 2.9.2 format) #116)

Related discussions

• This issue is closely related to the discussion going on at Define optimal serialization format and variations (dropping or reviving the 2.9.2 format) #116 - especially Define optimal serialization format and variations (dropping or reviving the 2.9.2 format) #116 (comment).
• https://sourceforge.net/p/jabref/feature-requests/892/
• https://sourceforge.net/p/jabref/feature-requests/854/

[lenhard]

But then the file contains text that is not bibtex and probably not in bibtex syntax. Might this not be a problem if the .bib file is shared with someone who uses a different editor?

Apart from that, I am all for file purity and against putting additional stuff into the .bib file. I'd prefer to define a fixed serialization format as in #116 :)

[koppor]

Currently, JabRef uses standardized @comment entries, e.g. @comment{jabref-meta: groupsversion:3;}. The only exception is the encoding (see #118).

Maybe it would be good to
A) Have one defined serialization format (see your comment #116 (comment))
B) Have the file sorting options not stored as setting, put as Tool to call explicitly. New entries are sorted in after the first alphabetical match. Only ONE sorting setting, not a configurable one.

Maybe, both things should but into our survey. @mlep (I'll write a private mail)

[mlep]

Waiting for your input! :-)

[lenhard]

Fixed in master