[bt-devel] BibleTime2? (was: Re: KHTML news)

Eeli Kaikkonen eekaikko at mail.student.oulu.fi
Tue Jul 24 15:08:49 MST 2007

(I hope we all read bt-devel? I don't like double messages.)

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Martin Gruner wrote:
> thought that we cannot reasonably start this project because we don't have
> enough resources for it (unless you or someone wants to go full-time or a few

That has been quite clear to me.

> Also, my hope still is that
> things change at sword (most important: frequent releases) so that we don't
> need an own backend.

I would like to see what Sword lacks. I have myself already seen that
the Sword project is quite slow, not so well organized and there
is no QA or anything like that (sorry if this hurt someone but this is
how I see it), but I would like to know what more experienced people
think about it technically.

> process of slow refactoring, still adding a feature here and there. At least
> you (Eeli) know BT's code now quite well, and I'm sure you already have a few
> ideas what could be improved. During this process we can try to slowly reduce
> the KDE parts of BibleTime in favor of QT.

That was in my mind.

> Maybe we'll even reach a point
> when 1.x will be cross-platform.

That would be OK for me. Actually that would be very nice because it
would be much less work than new codebase. It would also remove the need
of two simultaneous forks.

> So, Eeli, Jeremy, and others: What do you think? Would you agree? Or would you
> make different suggestions?

> P.S. If we agree we should start a page in the wiki which lists small,
> well-defined subprojects for the refactoring / feature adding phase.

Yes, that was also something I thought about. Many thoughts which I have
given in wiki regarding BT2 can be applied to BT1 as well. Here are some
other examples:

- Configuration system does not feel very sound
- I hate modal dialogs
- Backend files should be refactored into subdirectories (I don't
  know them but it's not fun to see all of them in one directory)
- Starting editing Personal commentary is not easy

Maybe we could use SourceForge Tasks for a well-defined task list and
wiki for more general ideas and discussion? Or is a formal task
management a la SF an overkill for our needs?

	Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
	e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)

More information about the bt-devel mailing list