[sword-devel] [sword-support] deuterocanonical support

Chris Little chrislit at crosswire.org
Mon Mar 16 00:26:00 MST 2009

Greg Hellings wrote:
> If not 1.6 or 2.0... then could you possibly explain to me the rhyme
> or reason given to the versioning system?

The minor version indicates whether we're in a development (odd number) 
or stable (even number) branch. Under that system, 1.6 and 2.0 wouldn't 
be right for this change. We could think about bumping to 1.7 though. 
I'll confess, I consider the v11n change to be evolutionary, not 
revolutionary, so I wouldn't expect a greater than usual version 
bump--but version numbering really isn't the sort of thing I think or 
care about.

I should mention that we're not considering a free-for-all here, where 
module developers get to implement their own v11n systems. We're also 
not talking about GenBook Bibles.

Troy wants us to identify and define a small set of v11n systems that 
give us the greatest bang for the buck, and module developers will have 
to select from one of those predefined systems (at least in 1.5.12). So, 
in addition to KJV, I'd like us to define a few important original 
language systems (probably Leningrad Codex, Vulgate, and LXXM) and a few 
broadly used translation v11n systems like NRSV/NRSVA (the OSIS 
standard) and maybe the French standard. We can support more in later 


More information about the sword-devel mailing list