2014-03-17 18:04 GMT+04:00 Troy A. Griffitts :
> Dear Костя,
>
> Is there a way to include a link to the diff in the bug instead of simply to
> you entire repository. I'd lime to review and comment on your fix (as I'm
> using my phone to check my mail) and have spent 5 minutes or so trying to
> get
Dear Костя,
Is there a way to include a link to the diff in the bug instead of simply to
you entire repository. I'd lime to review and comment on your fix (as I'm using
my phone to check my mail) and have spent 5 minutes or so trying to get the
website to just switch to the branch you mention a
Please, consider this fix:
http://www.crosswire.org/tracker/browse/MOD-61 and
http://www.crosswire.org/tracker/browse/API-150 is similar.
Actually i got weird things as things are not threaded in time. Blessings.
2014-01-14 14:02 GMT+04:00 Chris Little :
> On 1/14/2014 12:51 AM, Костя Маслюк wr
On 1/16/2014 8:21 AM, Greg Hellings wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Костя Маслюк mailto:kostyamasl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I would assume this requires a change to function signatures, so
it's not going to appear in 1.7.x at all.
In your mouth it sound like that it going
On 1/16/2014 7:35 AM, Костя Маслюк wrote:
> I would assume this requires a change to function signatures, so it's
not going to appear in 1.7.x at all.
In your mouth it sound like that it going never appear in Sword. Patch
only add parameter with default value to one public function. There is
no
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Костя Маслюк wrote:
> > I would assume this requires a change to function signatures, so it's
> not going to appear in 1.7.x at all.
>
> In your mouth it sound like that it going never appear in Sword. Patch
> only add parameter with default value to one public fun
> I would assume this requires a change to function signatures, so it's not
going to appear in 1.7.x at all.
In your mouth it sound like that it going never appear in Sword. Patch only
add parameter with default value to one public function. There is no
problem to revert and make some work in priv
On 1/16/14, 3:50 PM, Chris Little wrote:
On 1/15/2014 3:51 PM, Daniel Owens wrote:
I agree. From a strategic point of view, I think it makes sense to place
a priority on mapping between KJV, NRSV, and Leningrad, but then LXX is
important too. Even if it is only approximate, there are some place
On 1/15/2014 3:51 PM, Daniel Owens wrote:
I agree. From a strategic point of view, I think it makes sense to place
a priority on mapping between KJV, NRSV, and Leningrad, but then LXX is
important too. Even if it is only approximate, there are some places
where it is very simple (most of the Psal
Chris,
Briefly, no, you didn't get any mappings to work that wouldn't obviously
work. Based on your mappings at
https://github.com/tyndale/jsword/tree/jsword-tyndale-master/src/main/resources/org/crosswire/jsword/versification,
your successes fall in three categories:
Leningrad, Luther, MT,
Verse numbers were introduced much later into the canonical text.
They were intended for convenience.
When displaying material in parallel, it's good to focus, not on the verse
numbers, which are secondary, but on the original caonnical content.
A good front-end correctly display this content lined
I agree. From a strategic point of view, I think it makes sense to
place a priority on mapping between KJV, NRSV, and Leningrad, but
then LXX is important too. Even if it is only approximate, there are
some places where it is very simple (most of the Psalms are offset
by
On 15 Jan 2014 15:13, "Chris Little" wrote:
>
> On 1/15/2014 12:31 AM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 19:07 -0800, Chris Little wrote:
>>>
>>> I haven't looked at the code, but the idea of mapping between
>>> versification systems (not versifications of particular translations
I think we still need to try.
If I had a bunch of paper Bibles that had different v11ns and (presuming I
could read the variety of languages) sat down to line them up, I would find
that it is hard because it is in front of me. If I were a novice, I might be
royally confused, but that would be t
On 1/15/2014 12:31 AM, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 19:07 -0800, Chris Little wrote:
I haven't looked at the code, but the idea of mapping between
versification systems (not versifications of particular translations but
versification systems, as we define them) is completely rid
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 19:07 -0800, Chris Little wrote:
> > Maybe with v11n mappings it is the same situation?
>
> I would assume this requires a change to function signatures, so it's
> not going to appear in 1.7.x at all.
I do not think that this is what Kostya asked for, just that his patch
wi
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 19:07 -0800, Chris Little wrote:
> I haven't looked at the code, but the idea of mapping between
> versification systems (not versifications of particular translations but
> versification systems, as we define them) is completely ridiculous.
Teus has already given a use c
In defense of mapping between versification system: We are using them
during translation work, and they provide advantages to the translator
where verses of different Bibles are displayed in parallel. And even if a
mapping is not perfect in the sense that it covers all cases, it still is
useful in
On 1/14/2014 8:43 AM, Костя Маслюк wrote:
Ok, simply it is strange when i submit any work and even do not know
that it was rejected with somewhat reason...
We have a place to submit bugs & bugfixes. It's the bug tracker:
http://www.crosswire.org/tracker/secure/Dashboard.jspa
As a bonus, you ca
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Костя Маслюк wrote:
> What about the "inconsequent lexicon index" fix i have posted here a month
> ago? I realize that it would not be threated as Critical, but it is still
> bad behaivior that affects every Sword frontend.
>
> I also realize that fix would not be
Ok, simply it is strange when i submit any work and even do not know that
it was rejected with somewhat reason...
Maybe with v11n mappings it is the same situation?
Blessings
2014/1/14 Chris Little
> On 1/14/2014 12:51 AM, Костя Маслюк wrote:
>
>> What about the "inconsequent lexicon index
On 1/14/2014 12:51 AM, Костя Маслюк wrote:
What about the "inconsequent lexicon index" fix i have posted here a
month ago? I realize that it would not be threated as Critical, but it
is still bad behaivior that affects every Sword frontend.
I also realize that fix would not be complete, but no o
What about the "inconsequent lexicon index" fix i have posted here a month
ago? I realize that it would not be threated as Critical, but it is still
bad behaivior that affects every Sword frontend.
I also realize that fix would not be complete, but no one even asked me for
deeper investigation, if
23 matches
Mail list logo
