dmsmith555 at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 29 07:11:50 MST 2008
On Nov 29, 2008, at 8:15 AM, Familie von Kaehne wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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
I think the answer is: It depends.
IMHO, our responsibility is to find the best sources we can, and
faithfully use those. If they have errors, we should either submit the
fix to the keepers of the obtained source or not use the source. If
the error is ours, that is, in the conversion, then I think it should
I think that Chris' position has been that the original module creator
should take the lead in maintaining the module. That if there is a
scripting problem in converting the source, then that person should
fix the scripts and rebuild the module from original source. My guess
is that is not too tenable and that there are many orphaned modules.
(But I don't know.)
I think that if you or I were to submit a corrected module that we did
not create and the creator did not fix his/her scripts, then the next
time that the module was released that our fix would be over-written.
By having our scripts under SVN, in some fashion like I mentioned in
an earlier thread, then those with access could make the changes.
Perhaps we should have two repositories, one for copyrighted/sensitive
material and one for everything else.
In an earlier posting I noted that without the ability to get the
source it can be very difficult to tell where the problem originated.
Most of our conf's don't give good enough links to the material. IMHO,
we should give the web page on which the material can be found, if not
the exact link from which the material is obtained.
For material that is "out-of-print", I think we should also indicate
that. For example, our conf's still indicate that Bible Foundation
should be contacted for corrections and for the source. They point
everyone to the SWORD project for the authoritative sources. We don't
have them. We have the artifacts of them: our modules. This reference
should be fixed.
More information about the sword-devel