[sword-devel] Namespace Proposal re eBible - collissions, duplication, clean-up etc

[Peter von Kaehne]

On Thu, 2015-09-03 at 09:29 -0400, Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
> 
> Adding complexity to configuration will not solve the problems being 
> fought.  Module de-dup and filesystem choice conflicts are readily 
> solvable.  Analogy: I'm finishing up a novel, and I need a title.  
> Hm, how about "To Kill a Mockingbird"?  Um, no, that's taken, and we 
> expect written works (hm) to have unique titles.  There is just one 
> Romeo and Juliet, one Midsummer Night's Dream, and one The Tempest.  
> Now apply the idea to Sword modules.

Yes, but Romeo and Juliet is produced by a dozen of different
publishers, because it is thankfully out of copyright. 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_10?url=search
-alias%3Dstripbooks&field
-keywords=romeo+and+juliet&sprefix=romeo+and+%2Caps%2C339

Most of these are by Shakespeare, some are some tribute plays or
whatever by other authors. Amazon can handle this, my bookshelf can
handle this, CrossWire should handle this. 

> > the eBible repository is currently nowhere advertised. People who
> *ahem*  Nobody's getting off that easily.  I alone had no less than 6 
> reports about eBible's failure to deliver content, all because 
> Michael wasn't testing his own repo before repeatedly announcing "all 
> is well!" to the world even when nothing was working.  Others 
> reported problems as well.  So I'm not buying that.  I don't expect 
> us to have to deal with a repo that was effectively bricked without 
> its owner even knowing it.

Leaving aside Michael's initial start-up difficulties, it remains a
fact that until eBible is part of the automatic repo updater,
advertised on the Wiki and elsewhere it remains a beta or even
experimental repo. People will need to live with breakage. 

And my proposal has the beauty that the only breakage some people will
experience is that they will suddenly have 2 SpaRV2009 from eBible (one
called SpaRV2009 and SpaRV2009ebib. Nothing will actually break. 

> 
> eBible repo has waited a long time to become available.  I think 
> another week or three ...

I agree that we can wait a little while longer, but my proposal changes
nothing to the negative, but removes in one fell swoop a whole range of
options for damaging failure.

Peter