[sword-devel] [OT] just join, testing only

[Chris Little]

Matthew Talbert wrote:
>> The link to BibleStudy's page is still current. The first two links on
>> the left make this clear.
> 
> How is software 3 years old, that more than likely is incompatible
> with today's sword, still current? If the project owner has lost
> interest, who is going to request that the blurb be changed? Reading
> further in the empycrate site, it is clear that it no longer has
> anything to do with the software, and the link on the left is to
> sourceforge.

The software is available statically compiled, so it's still usable. And 
I never stated that the software itself was current, rather that the 
link is. We could change it to the SF project page, though, I suppose.

> I find it strange and a little sad that in an open source Christian
> project, changes can only be made by funneling them through one
> person.

Updates are generally funneled through various types of project 
managers. That applies to code submissions (where being open source is 
relevant) as well as webpage updates (where being open source is 
irrelevant). We don't permit SVN commits, except from certain people. 
Others have to submit patches for review. Likewise, we don't allow 
changes to the webpage, except from certain people. And other changes 
need to be submitted to people with the appropriate permissions. We DO 
allow changes to the Wiki to be performed by anyone, after a short 
waiting period.

 > I thought the wiki was and is a great idea, and like Peter, I
> depend on it for up-to-date information. I also tend to use it because
> I find the navigation of the main sword site terribly confusing. Some
> navigation links (by which I mean links at the top or left) point to
> the sword site, some point to the wiki, some to the forums, at least
> one is a pdf, one point's to scribe's thoughts page, others point to
> external sites, etc. When I am using a website, I depend on at least
> the main navigation remaining the same, unless I am clearly being
> redirected away from the main site.

I guess I fail to see the problem with the links to the Wiki (the FAQ 
link) or the forums (what were you expecting when you clicked the word 
"forums"?). Your other complaints all appear to apply specifically to 
the developers section of the website, where we tend to care less about 
presentation. Most of the developers section could reasonably be moved 
into the Wiki (that being what the Wiki was intended for).

--Chris