Re: [sword-devel] Wycliffe modules and beta testing
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Chris Little chris...@crosswire.org wrote: Peter von Kaehne wrote: If this understanding is correct could we either move them in bulk into the main repository or- in my view vastly preferable - create a vendor repository for Wycliffe and move them there? If WBT wants to maintain its own repository, then they can do that. I don't think it serves them to move offsite and essentially lose exposure, and I don't think it would serve us to maintain additional repositories. I would assume Peter means a separate directory on the crosswire server rather than offsite? As long as that repo was known about by frontends and activated by default then the modules shouldn't lose exposure. It also makes it easier to 'disable' for people that aren't interested in them at all. Regards, Daniel ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Wycliffe modules and beta testing
Daniel Glassey wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Chris Little chris...@crosswire.org wrote: Peter von Kaehne wrote: If this understanding is correct could we either move them in bulk into the main repository or- in my view vastly preferable - create a vendor repository for Wycliffe and move them there? If WBT wants to maintain its own repository, then they can do that. I don't think it serves them to move offsite and essentially lose exposure, and I don't think it would serve us to maintain additional repositories. I would assume Peter means a separate directory on the crosswire server rather than offsite? As long as that repo was known about by frontends and activated by default then the modules shouldn't lose exposure. It also makes it easier to 'disable' for people that aren't interested in them at all. That is what I meant. I think there is generally mileage with the new dynamic module manager to cut our repository into smaller (be default enabled) sections which could be disabled by users with no interest in the particular content. The only major reason against this in terms of usability is the current layout of most frontends' module manager - instead of seeing the unified content list of all repositories activated, irrespective of repository, we have to click around between different repositories. So having a long list of repositories with few modules in each would probably be tedious in the current crop of frontend module managers. But having a huge list of languages in a single repository is also tedious. Probably more so. So I am brainstorming. Peter ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Wycliffe modules and beta testing
Peter von Kaehne wrote: My understanding of a discussion with Troy was that we are not supposed to do beta testing on the Wycliffe modules as they are kind a separate category - supplied and maintained by the organisation - and we only host them We need to test them to the extent that we need to know what failings exist in either our conversion process or in frontends. For the most part, we aren't testing the content quality--I pretty much know where the SF-OSIS problems are and have corrected them myself. It may have been our hope that Wycliffe maintain their own content, but that has not been the case, partly because we haven't set up a process for them and partly because (I believe) it's not their desire to manage content on our servers (and I haven't heard anything to the contrary; but correct me if I'm wrong). If this understanding is correct could we either move them in bulk into the main repository or- in my view vastly preferable - create a vendor repository for Wycliffe and move them there? If WBT wants to maintain its own repository, then they can do that. I don't think it serves them to move offsite and essentially lose exposure, and I don't think it would serve us to maintain additional repositories. The updates to the module manager will make this much easier (by automatically binding in other repositories) and I think we are doing ourselves no favour by keeping them either in beta or in main. As I remember the testing which was in full flow came to a grinding halt when people started looking at this list. The Wycliffe modules should essentially mirror one another in terms of errors and issues. If we test one or two of them adequately, then the others should show the same issues and need not be tested. We set aside the Wycliffe modules from testing (both literally and figuratively) at your request and that occurred significantly prior to the cessation of testing. So to assign any connection between their presence and no volunteers doing any testing would be an error of fact. --Chris ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Wycliffe modules and beta testing
Chris Little wrote: Peter von Kaehne wrote: We set aside the Wycliffe modules from testing (both literally and figuratively) at your request and that occurred significantly prior to the cessation of testing. Then you have a significantly better memory than I, though I do admit feeling daunted by them at the time and probably expressed myself that way. If that influenced others to stop too, I am sorry. So to assign any connection between their presence and no volunteers doing any testing would be an error of fact. Possibly. It seemed that way though at the time. It certainly affected me. But if the rest of the idea is dismissed then this point was irrelevant anyway. I just guess it is time again to start testing and tried to parcel up the job into what needs to be done, what should be done and what can wait. You have updated a whole bunch of modules in November following various updates to osis2mod. The trouble is that there are still a number of modules which are waiting for 1.5.12 updates while others only were waiting for osis2mod updates. Peter ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
Re: [sword-devel] Wycliffe modules and beta testing
Peter von Kaehne wrote: I just guess it is time again to start testing and tried to parcel up the job into what needs to be done, what should be done and what can wait. You have updated a whole bunch of modules in November following various updates to osis2mod. The trouble is that there are still a number of modules which are waiting for 1.5.12 updates while others only were waiting for osis2mod updates. Modules requiring 1.5.12 will quickly become modules requiring 1.5.13 if we don't get any of the requisite code written. I think I wrote, but haven't tested, the OSISRuby filter, so those Japanese Bibles might be ready when we release 1.5.12. The new content compiled with osis2mod may need to wait on additional updates to osis2mod. A little testing of some recent releases in BibleCS BD showed odd behavior with red-letter text, but I didn't have time to check whether the fault lay with osis2mod or simply with bad source material. A few of the GenBooks are probably ready to go, as are a few Bibles. But wholly independent of that are some problems with the server configuration that I haven't had time to track down--though I suspect a problem with permissions. Until that is corrected, downloads from the webpage don't work, so new releases are probably a bad idea. --Chris ___ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
