[sword-devel] Wycliffe modules and beta testing
Peter von Kaehne
refdoc at gmx.net
Wed Jan 21 08:07:24 MST 2009
Daniel Glassey wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Chris Little <chrislit at 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.
More information about the sword-devel