There’s no point today. We thought the purpose was to have true beta for modules and such visibility for those committed to module development. Chris L has been absent for quite a while now. It was largely, if not entirely, his module efforts.
We’ve a new and different team of workers on modules today. For the most part Peter is the pumpkin holder for the module repository. Maybe use beta as designed. Maybe a policy to only allow things in beta for no more than 6 months unchanged. If we were to move the ones that appear mostly good out to the main and problems are found then that’d encourage improvement. Sitting in main does not. — DM > On Apr 16, 2015, at 11:13 AM, Karl Kleinpaste <k...@kleinpaste.org> wrote: > > Today, someone came into #xiphos to say that Daily (Jonathan Bagster's Daily > Light on the Daily Path) was both displaying oddly and causing hangs in > latest Xiphos. We poked around a while, coming to no sure conclusion because > what I saw was clearly not what he saw. > > Then I realized he had an old version, 1.0, while I have 1.6. And then it > was further discovered that 1.6 is available in Beta, not in CrossWire main. > Regular folks don't go poking around in Beta much. > > Beta repo's Daily has been sitting there, waiting to go to main, since > February 2010. That's 5 years. Well, anyway, that's the date on most of > mods.d/* there. Who knows when it last actually changed. Maybe 5 years > before that, for all I know. > > The fellow upgraded Daily and poof no more problem. He said it looks very > different, and the set of verse citations has changed. > > Some time back, I found myself wandering around > http://www.crosswire.org/wiki/Modules_in_the_beta_repository > <http://www.crosswire.org/wiki/Modules_in_the_beta_repository> > > What exactly is the point of having a beta repo? > > On this page, there are reporting dates back as far as 2007, without further > updates. That's pushing 8 years ago. A bunch are marked "known bad, do not > test," as of 2007, 2008, or 2010. Well, what are they still around for, if > they're "known bad" and nothing can be expected ever to change that state? > > There is one comment in all of 2011...and that's the most recent anywhere on > the page. One in 2010. A small pile in 2009. By far, most are in 2008. > > The level of commentary on display quality consists of e.g. "Displays well in > GS, BD, MS, SW" when Xiphos hasn't been GnomeSword since 2009 (6 years) and > Eloquent hasn't been MacSword in roughly that long as well. > > Tisch has a notation that John 8:53 is broken, so I looked at my copy: Yup, > verse numbering skips from 11 to a gigantic 53 with no intervening 12-52, and > yet this notation is 6 years old with no evident progress toward making Tisch > correct. And by the way, Tisch is based on v2.5 of the text; by comparison, > my TischMorph is built from v2.7 of the same text, and it's lovely and > available in Xiphos repo. > > 4 out of 5 Japanese Bibles are noted, "hold for 1.6.2 testing" and yet we've > got 1.7.3 or .4 released. > > The page as a whole hasn't seen a significant change in 3 years. > > Seriously, what's the point? What does it mean to be "beta" if there is > never movement away from that state, either toward release or toward > deliberate abandonment? > > Release them to main or kill them outright. Purgatory is bad doctrine. > _______________________________________________ > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@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@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
