[bt-devel] Working on BibleTime

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Martin Gruner wrote:
> Only the first item really belongs to the port. Let us make that our priority
> for now.

With "port" I meant not the work of porting but the codebase compared
with "BibleTime 2". But your comment is still right: that should be the
priority now. Personally I just feel that I cannot concentrate on just
hunting and fixing bugs and therefore I occasionally plan new features
or think how I could refactor something, though it is not immediately
productive.

> We need to get something releaseable. After the port is completed I
> want to have a "beta" release that can be installed and works cleanly. That
> could be quite soon as we made good progress on the port already. We don't
> need a final release until KDE 4.0 is out, but we should have regular beta
> releases for people to try and provide feedback. It will help us to be more
> disciplined and to not forget aspects of the development progress that we
> don't like so much.

That is true.

> Let us concentrate on finishing the port and making the first beta release
> now. When we have that, we can start with features and major refactoring. Of
> course, some refactoring may be needed or useful even during the port.

Drag'n'Drop is an example of that. Which reminds me, it is now disabled
everywhere and I have to add it in TODO list.

> Eeli, since you spend the most time on BT now, I'd like to ask you to plan the
> remaining todos. We should use the wiki for that, listing todos and
> responsible people. I'll contribute to the wiki and the work where I can. The
> installation process still needs some work, as well as the 18n package which
> doesn't even exist yet. We should also clean up the wiki a bit. Some stuff is
> already obsolete.
> Eeli, is that ok for you, to lead the planning here?

I'll try to do that.

> Features are good, but we should choose wisely, it should be discussed and
> integrate with the UI and philosophy of BT. Our focus should be more on
> refactoring than on features, after the port.

Yes. BibleTime is strong in consistent interface right now and it should
be continued carefully.

> > The third one needs much planning, I think. It is not easy to change
> > existing code without making it more rotten.
>
> Indeed. It also depends on programming skills and experience (that's why the
> code IS rotten in places). ;)

I have noticed it's sometimes "uneven" :)


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