Familie von Kaehne
refdoc at gmx.net
Sat Nov 29 06:15:09 MST 2008
DM Smith wrote:
> Again the reason we don't have such a repository is because we don't
> want to become a secondary repository of primary works. We'd need to
> figure out how to work around that.
Part of my desire for a module source repository has been addressed by
the apparent acceptance for a round trip with improvement for a module.
In the past when I reported problems (UTF8 encoding, verse separation
etc) I was stopped from simply doing a round trip and do the change,
but it appears that this is now accepted.
I was told we would need to recreate the module from source.
Now I am capable of doing the first, but the second is often beyond me.
I guess others are in the same position.
In consequence we had often for a fair while modules with serious
problems in the main repository.
Can I assume that the round-trip with improvement is now accepted practice?
More information about the sword-devel