From: Raymond M. <bio...@ya...> - 2007-03-21 16:28:10
|
Hi, I am thinking of making a release of the experimental version on the OmegaT+ project. I just wanted to let you all know and to get some feedback about it beforehand. One thing I would like to know is what is the consensus about releasing this under the same name (different version number). Needless to say, I will put the changes I make into the B2T CVS. Maybe not concurrently, because I am working on a number of things at the same time, but within a reasonable delay. I don't expect the B2T project to release the package I will put together, it could. Hopefully by releasing this on my project it will stir some user interest and invite feedback to the B2T trackers and users group. Perhaps this could help in deciding what features or changes to make in the actual B2T. Let me know what you all think. I hope to have something by the beginning of next month. Cheers. Raymond __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |
From: Raymond M. <la...@gm...> - 2007-09-20 17:20:30
|
Hi, Sorry about the long delay from the last post. I have some time now to make a release of the experimental version. Just a few clarifications are needed before I proceed. I was thinking of releasing under the same name, but with -exp as part of the version number. As for version number, we had talked about it going to be 0.91. I was thinking of going straight to 1.0 with a series of milestones, betas, and release candidates (not to mention more functionality). Can you tell me why the application was initially released as 0.9, instead of starting from 0.1. No big explanation necessary, just whether there was some progression that preceded it. Feedback would be appreciated. Cheers. Raymond |
From: Mikel F. Z. <ml...@dl...> - 2007-09-21 04:47:38
|
Hi, Raymond. > > Sorry about the long delay from the last post. Good to hear from you. We have been inactive for a long while too. > I have some time now to make a release of the experimental version. Great. > Just a few clarifications are needed before I proceed. > I was thinking of releasing under the same name, but with -exp as part of > the version number. As for version number, we had talked about it going to > be 0.91. I was thinking of going straight to 1.0 with a series of milestones, > betas, and release candidates (not to mention more functionality). I am no expert in version naming/numbering myself. What would be in that release? I seem to remember there was a way to save and recover a partially finished aligner job in Susana's last code. Are you going to incorporate that too? So what would it be, 1.0-exp? I would like something like 0.99 better, because it conveys the meaning "it is about to be finished" but any release with any reasonable name/number is welcome. > > Can you tell me why the application was initially released as 0.9, instead > of starting from 0.1. As I said, I am no expert in version numbering. It was 0.9 to express something like: we know there are things to do, but the final product will look a lot like this. > No big explanation necessary, just whether there was > some progression that preceded it. No, our first release was 0.9. However, the tool was used internally in a project and went through various versions. > > Feedback would be appreciated. Cheers Mikel |
From: Raymond M. <bio...@ya...> - 2007-09-21 14:47:58
|
Hi Mikel, > > I was thinking of releasing under the same name, but with -exp as part of > > the version number. As for version number, we had talked about it going to > > be 0.91. I was thinking of going straight to 1.0 with a series of milestones, > > betas, and release candidates (not to mention more functionality). > > I am no expert in version naming/numbering myself. > > What would be in that release? I seem to remember there was a way to > save and recover a partially finished aligner job in Susana's last code. > Are you going to incorporate that too? She had made it possible to reload work from a TMX. That will be there. > So what would it be, 1.0-exp? I would like something like 0.99 better, > because it conveys the meaning "it is about to be finished" but any > release with any reasonable name/number is welcome. Seems we are still up in the air with this then. I believe that the work I am going to do will have more significant changes than perhaps the project will be willing to merge into the official version. One reason I wanted to settle on exactly what version number to use. I was thinking of bitext2tmx-1.0-exp as the final version, after going through preliminary release candidates, e.g. bitext2tmx-1.0-RC1-exp, and so forth. The idea is to differentiate it from bitext2tmx proper because it won't be the official version. A question here is whether it could ever become the official version. Is there any more work going to be done by others? If not, would others just like to keep the official version as is or could my version take its place (after it is shown to be of good quality)? I could go with 0.99 as you suggest. That might be what I do if my version could eventually become the official one. Then there would be no need for a 1.0-exp, the 1.0 version would be enough. Depending on what others want to do, I may have to consider giving my version a different name at some point. Things are still a little mixed up. Hopefully everybody else can weigh in on these possibilities before I make a final decision. Just note that whatever work I do on a version, I cannot go to the effort to merge my changes back into the official version. There are just too many things that I am going to change. It would basically just be a mess and a nightmare to try and make it work. It would be easier to take my version and put other changes into it and make that the official version. Others can always pick and choose what they want from my version and put that in the current official version. Whatever the case, bitext2tmx will be moving forward in one way or another. Just let me know what you think. Cheers, Raymond |
From: Mikel F. Z. <ml...@dl...> - 2007-09-21 15:32:32
|
Hi Raymond, > She had made it possible to reload work from a TMX. That will be there. Excellent. > > Seems we are still up in the air with this then. I believe that the work I am going > to do will have more significant changes than perhaps the project will be willing > to merge into the official version. Raymond, you are the only one working on it now. Let's make your version the official one. Whoeever wants to trace changes can use the "time machine" built into CVS. > One reason I wanted to settle on exactly what > version number to use. > > I was thinking of bitext2tmx-1.0-exp as the final version, after going through > preliminary release candidates, e.g. bitext2tmx-1.0-RC1-exp, and so forth. > The idea is to differentiate it from bitext2tmx proper because it won't be the > official version. Or it will. > A question here is whether it could ever become the official > version. Is there any more work going to be done by others? As I have said above, not much. > If not, would > others just like to keep the official version as is or could my version take its > place (after it is shown to be of good quality)? I think your versions could be called bitext2tmx-1.0-RC1, -RC2, etc. (no -exp) so that they are considered precursors of the official version. Using the -RCn flag visualizes progress. > I could go with 0.99 as you suggest. That might be what I do if my version could > eventually become the official one. Then there would be no need for a 1.0-exp, > the 1.0 version would be enough. Depending on what others want to do, I may have > to consider giving my version a different name at some point. Things are still a > little mixed up. Hopefully everybody else can weigh in on these possibilities > before I make a final decision. Do you feel comfortable with bitext2tmx-1.0-RC1, etc.? Then go for it. > Just note that whatever work I do on a version, I cannot go to the effort to merge > my changes back into the official version. There are just too many things that I > am going to change. It would basically just be a mess and a nightmare to try and > make it work. It would be easier to take my version and put other changes into > it and make that the official version. I agree. > Others can always pick and choose what > they want from my version and put that in the current official version. Or make experimental versions out of your version if it is the official one. > Whatever the case, bitext2tmx will be moving forward in one way or another. That is good! Thanks Mikel |
From: Raymond M. <bio...@ya...> - 2007-09-21 16:38:27
|
Hi Mikel, > > > > Seems we are still up in the air with this then. I believe that the work I am going > > to do will have more significant changes than perhaps the project will be willing > > to merge into the official version. > > Raymond, you are the only one working on it now. Let's make your version > the official one. Whoeever wants to trace changes can use the "time > machine" built into CVS. Sounds great and definitely makes my work easier. > I think your versions could be called bitext2tmx-1.0-RC1, -RC2, etc. (no > -exp) so that they are considered precursors of the official version. > Using the -RCn flag visualizes progress. Okay, that is better and more clear for users. > > I could go with 0.99 as you suggest. That might be what I do if my version could > > eventually become the official one. Then there would be no need for a 1.0-exp, > > the 1.0 version would be enough. Depending on what others want to do, I may have > > to consider giving my version a different name at some point. Things are still a > > little mixed up. Hopefully everybody else can weigh in on these possibilities > > before I make a final decision. > > Do you feel comfortable with bitext2tmx-1.0-RC1, etc.? Then go for it. Alright, I will do something along that line. > > Others can always pick and choose what > > they want from my version and put that in the current official version. > > Or make experimental versions out of your version if it is the official > one. Exactly. Is anybody else going to give some feedback on this matter? I'll wait for more comments if that is the case. Not sure about the time frame for getting something ready. I can pretty much start working on it right away. More later... Raymond |
From: Raymond M. <bio...@ya...> - 2007-09-20 17:21:10
|
Hi, Sorry about the long delay from the last post. I have some time now to make a release of the experimental version. Just a few clarifications are needed before I proceed. I was thinking of releasing under the same name, but with -exp as part of the version number. As for version number, we had talked about it going to be 0.91. I was thinking of going straight to 1.0 with a series of milestones, betas, and release candidates (not to mention more functionality). Can you tell me why the application was initially released as 0.9, instead of starting from 0.1. No big explanation necessary, just whether there was some progression that preceded it. Feedback would be appreciated. Cheers. Raymond |
From: Mikel F. Z. <ml...@dl...> - 2007-03-21 21:20:39
|
Raymond, > I am thinking of making a release of the experimental version on the OmegaT+ > project. I just wanted to let you all know and to get some feedback about it > beforehand I appreciate that myself. > One thing I would like to know is what is the consensus about releasing this under the > same name (different version number). If the new bitext2tmx-0.95-omegatplus or however you decide to call it is an improvement of what we have in bitext2tmx-0.9 , I think having the same name and a higher version number is adequate. > Needless to say, I will put the changes I make into the B2T CVS. Maybe not concurrently, > because I am working on a number of things at the same time, but within a reasonable > delay. We should have the new package in sf.net/projects/bitext2tmx and we would also like it if you could upload it to in the bitext2tmx and develop it there. I can take care of that partly, and also, of any possible localization needs (ca, es, etc.). We would announce it and acknowledge your contribution in a news item. > I don't expect the B2T project to release the package I will put together, it could. We will. See above. > Hopefully by releasing this on my project it will stir some user interest and invite > feedback to the B2T trackers and users group. You bet. > Perhaps this could help in deciding > what features or changes to make in the actual B2T. Doing what you propose seems adequate to me. > Let me know what you all think. There you go. > > I hope to have something by the beginning of next month. Thanks Mikel > > Cheers. > > Raymond > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com |