Re: [be] BE and git-- I can't fetch it!

[Neil Mayhew]

On 2011-05-13 00:37, Jonathan Marsden wrote:
> On 05/12/2011 11:29 PM, Neil Mayhew wrote:
>
> > In case it's helpful, here's what I just did to hack together a package
> > for 4.2.67:
>
> I prefer not to package unreleased things from git; at least in theory,
> stuff that comes as an official release tarball should be more tested
> and better quality source code than using the development tree.

Yes, good point. However, you do have nightly builds and developer 
previews of other sword-related packages at the crosswire PPA. Maybe 
something similar for bibledit would be helpful to people? (see below)

Note that the git-archive trick for producing tarballs can be used with 
any tag in the repo, for example ones that are known to be relatively 
stable.

> There is a bibledit 4.2 tarball. I downloaded it back in February, but
> apparently never quite got as far as creating a package from it... I'm
> about to try.

Maybe Teus could help with what Kim is requesting by releasing tarballs 
more often? (Or maybe you are already doing this, Teus. I haven't 
checked to see what your usual practice is.)

> BTW, the subject line suggests someone is trying to grab code from git
> who is not a developer. This is *not* something to be encouraged. The
> documentation for installing bibledit does not, as far as I know,
> recommend this, either.

This is someone who is actively involved with bibledit development, 
although not as a programmer. Kim is one of the main people 
suggesting/requesting features and doing thorough testing in real-life 
scenarios.

> When the code is ready for release, it should go through the usual
> release process, including whatever testing and QA happens for every
> release; people wanting sources should get the most recent official
> release. git repositories are for use by developers wanting to improve
> the code, to work on it; they are not intended for end users wanting to
> use the released application.

I agree completely, for something that is to labelled as a stable 
release. However, given that this is an application for end users, not 
programmers, it would help the QA process considerably if there were 
packages available for people to test, rather than having to build from 
source. Most of the other sword-related programs can be tested 
adequately by a programmer, but ideally bibledit needs to be tested by a 
translator, and that typically means somebody who isn't particularly 
comfortable with building from source.

I should also point out that in this situation Kim badly needed a fix 
that Teus had just committed to the repo, since she is providing 
bibledit to non-technical users who disappear back into the rural areas 
of PNG for a month or two at a time. In this case, the risk of a 
somewhat less stable application was outweighed by the urgent need for 
that particular fix.

Hope this info is helpful. Thanks for your great work on packaging! (I'm 
just an amateur at it; your experience and wisdom are very much needed.)

--Neil