<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font face="FreeSerif">On 09/03/2015 05:26 AM, Peter von Kaehne
wrote:<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="FreeSerif">Looking at the flurry
of emails from the last few weeks I am thinking<br>
if I was Michael, I would start hitting my head against the
wall.</font></blockquote>
<font face="FreeSerif"><br>
I'm not Michael, and I already feel like I've been beating my head
against eBible's wall.<br>
<br>
In an unusual-for-me fit of good taste, I just deleted about 8
rant-y paragraphs in which I went on at length about the nature of
the problems being fought on eBible's behalf. Suffice for summary
that the problems being fought are not deep problems, rather they
are surface problems we are being forced to fight because no one
is minding the store. Take a peek at Michael's just-updated
grcTisch in Xiphos to see what's wrong with its morph to
understand what I mean, or just see my screenshots:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://ftp.xiphos.org/sword/xiphos/grcTisch/">http://ftp.xiphos.org/sword/xiphos/grcTisch/</a> This isn't a
"wouldn't it be nice to fix" issue; this is a surface level
"nobody glanced at this even once in any app" issue.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="FreeSerif">the eBible repository
is currently nowhere advertised. People who<br>
use it, know they are testing things and need to live with
breakage.</font></blockquote>
<font face="FreeSerif"><br>
*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.<br>
<br>
eBible repo has waited a long time to become available. I think
another week or three to hammer things out to a level of basic,
functional, non-conflicting quality is in order. Given that we
were forced to spend literally weeks hammering our heads against
eBible's inability even to deliver content, I think it's a small
price to ask and a small effort to expect.</font><br>
</body>
</html>