[sword-devel] Bibles in Beta

[Daniel Blake]

Another reason for storing the original text is to be able to compare 
and prove we haven't changed the actual text.  Along with proving what 
source text was actually used.  As I understand it, we don't even know 
what the original source was for some of the current modules.  That 
can't be a good thing.

Daniel Blake

Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Manfred Bergmann <bergmannmd at web.de> wrote:
>   
>> Am 16.06.2008 um 22:45 schrieb DM Smith:
>>
>>     
>>> Peter von Kaehne wrote:
>>>       
>>>> The way we work with software is
>>>>
>>>> 1) multiple independent projects
>>>> 2) each project has one or several leads
>>>> 3) there are other contributors with and without write access to the
>>>> project repository
>>>> 4) all projects are in some form of version control
>>>> 5) Many projects have a development version and (in)frequent releases
>>>> 6) we work towards three aims a) bug freeness b) OSIS feature
>>>> completeness and c) new and imaginative software features
>>>>
>>>> Much of the above could be fully applicable on our work with
>>>> modules -
>>>> but we do not do this. Why?
>>>>
>>>> If we would create a way of
>>>>
>>>> a) having a raw text repository where the texts are kept in some
>>>> import
>>>> format (OSIS, ThML, whatever) under version control
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I think this needs to be the original text as we received it. Not the
>>> import format. We should keep complete records of when, where, why and
>>> how we got the text. Because the "place" where we got it might change
>>> (the source is updated, or no longer available, ....), I don't think
>>> that merely noting where it was obtained is sufficient.
>>>
>>> If I had the original text, I may have been able to compare the
>>> resulting modules in beta for whether the "missing" verses were
>>> missing
>>> in the source.
>>>       
>> I would also think the source texts should be version controlled.
>> Also the scripts.
>> It should be possible for us to compare at source level.
>> Also it should not be needed to ask the instance we got the sources
>> from to give us the sources again because we don't store them.
>>     
>
> Agreed.  Storing both the original copy we receive, as well as the
> scripts we use to generate the file for import should both definitely
> be among the tasks taken.  If need be, the svn access could be made
> non-public if there are licensing concerns.  I think the only reason
> to store the imported files would be if there are manual edits that
> are necessary, and even then, those should be documented in a file
> that is in the version controlling system.
>
> In all, it just cuts out the pressure on every module
> contributor/maintainer to keep their own scripts, backups, source
> files, and import files and allows anyone with access to the system to
> contribute edits as necessary.
>
> --Greg
>
>   
>> Manfred
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
>> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
>> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
>
>
>