November 2010 - Koha-devel - lists.koha-community.org

Re: [Koha-devel] Bug 5401: WYSWYG for Koha News
by MJ Ray 15 Nov '10

15 Nov '10

Galen Charlton wrote: > Since TinyMCE is used by only one page, if we decide to switch to > elRTE (or to something else entirely), it won't be a big deal. Has > anybody done a direct comparison? I've used TinyMCE and haven't used elRTE, but wouldn't this question get better answers if asked on koha-devel? Thanks -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Past Koha Release Manager (2.0), LMS programmer, statistician, webmaster. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha

5 7

Call for testing .. Reports module changes
by Chris Cormack 14 Nov '10

14 Nov '10

Hi all There is a branch at git.koha-community.org, new/biblibre_reports. It has had some good initial testing, with a few issues found and fixed, (Thanks Galen). If people could check it out and do some more testing, and let me know what they find. I think it is very close to being merged to master, I would just like a little more testing by some others. You can see the branch in gitweb here http://git.koha-community.org/gitweb/?p=koha.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/ne… And can report your findings here http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/BibLibre_patches_to_be_integrated_for_3… Thanks in advance. Chris

1 0

November Newsletter
by Nicole Engard 13 Nov '10

13 Nov '10

Hello all, I'm thinking for the next Koha Newsletter we'll do a conference sum-up. So between the start of the conference and the 12th of November please send me links to posts you may have written about conference sessions, links to pictures from KohaCon, and anything else conference related. Thanks Nicole C. Engard

1 2

RE : Re: XML processing
by Henri-Damien LAURENT 12 Nov '10

12 Nov '10

Other reason is that deserializing from xml rather than iso2709 is WAY slower and proc intensive. It would not be a problem is any setup would CORRECTLY and SENSIBLY use XSLT. But since XSLT.pm is what it is ie taking marc record, editing, tranforms to xml before processing xslt, this process would only be slower if we used xml. Moreover the main reason why record are bigger than 9999 bytes is because of items. It is proven that it would really be HEALTHY to remove them. So the problem wouls not exist any longer. My 2 cts. -- Henri-Damien Laurent Le 12 nov. 2010, 7:55 AM, "Frédéric Demians" <frederic(a)tamil.fr> a écrit : > Here we go > > http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl4lib/2006/05/msg2369.html >From this email, as I understand it, it seems that here is the reason why Koha in search result deserialize MARC records from their ISO2709 representation rather than their MARCXML. If we were able to use marcxml, the 99,999 limitation for MARC record size could be exceed. And we would have one less reason to move to SolR--notwithstanding the other reasons to move to. -- Frédéric _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel(a)lists.koha-comm...

3 2

XML processing
by Clay Fouts 12 Nov '10

12 Nov '10

Hi, all. Can anyone point me to documentation about why Expat is considered incompatible with Koha (and I'm assuming MARC::File::XML). I know there are dire warnings against such, but what are the test cases where it fails? Expat is considerably faster than the LibXML implementation, and it would be a shame if we were continuing to avoid using it without due cause. I've been unable to detect issues with it in my anecdotal test cases thus far. Thank you, Clay

4 6

While we are cleaning house on RFCs and Enhancement Requests
by Chris Nighswonger 11 Nov '10

11 Nov '10

I note that there are some 620 open enhancement requests in Bugzilla. Here is the search: http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&… It might be good to take some time and see if any of these belong to you and update the status of them, as well as consider adding the appropriate RFC to the wiki using the template available here: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Category:RFCs#RFC_Template Kind Regards, Chris

1 0

z3950NormalizeAuthor
by Galen Charlton 11 Nov '10

11 Nov '10

Hi, Question for the UNIMARC users among us - what is the purpose of this system preference? I can make out what it's doing in terms of copying over selected 7XX values to the UNIMARC author tag, but why is this necessary? Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton gmcharlt(a)gmail.com

1 0

Tests failing due to "none-mandatory" modules not being installed
by Chris Nighswonger 11 Nov '10

11 Nov '10

I've noticed recently that several tests fail if one elects not to install the so-called "optional" dependencies of Koha. It seems to me that this is undesirable behavior, but then, I may be missing something. So.... is this desirable, or should tests of code requiring "optional" deps be conditioned to skip parts that would fail due to non-installation of these deps? Kind Regards, Chris

1 0

about Unimarc and Analytical record implementation
by Zeno Tajoli 11 Nov '10

11 Nov '10

Hi to all, about this request of Henri-Damien on koha-patches > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 22:59:43 +0100 > From: LAURENT Henri-Damien <henridamien.laurent(a)biblibre.com> > Subject: Re: [Koha-patches] [PATCH] Analytical record: improved code > to create analytical record from an item > To: koha-patches(a)lists.koha-community.org > Message-ID: <4CDB15CF.2080104(a)biblibre.com> [...] > This is marc21 only. > Could you be so kind as to at least use some variables ? > Or create the variable and then populate it ? I'm the person that will do those changes. I wrote to Savitra and Amit and I said that I will do this type of changes. So you will see them. -- Zeno Tajoli CILEA - Segrate (MI) tajoliAT_SPAM_no_prendiATcilea.it (Indirizzo mascherato anti-spam; sostituisci qaunto tra AT con @)

1 0

3.2.x Release Maintenance Procedures
by Chris Nighswonger 10 Nov '10

10 Nov '10

During the general IRC meeting today, a question came up concerning how I plan to push patches to 3.2.x. Here is the general procedure I intend to follow, but am certainly reserving my right to change it as necessary. 1. The general policy will be to cherry-pick/merge patches from HEAD as they appear and are applicable to 3.2.x. Besides the fact that bugs in 3.2.x are also bugs in HEAD, these patches have already passed QA and are considered stable, so this greatly reduces the workload. 2. At such a time as a merge conflict should occur due to the eventually inevitable divergence of 3.2.x and HEAD, *the submitter* of a patch will be responsible to ensure that the patch applies to both branches (HEAD and 3.2.x) *before* submission, and if the patch does not apply to the 3.2.x branch, *the submitter* will be responsible to take whatever action is necessary to make it apply before submission. This will most likely mean submitting two versions of the patch: one for HEAD and one for 3.2.x. This responsibility is an ethical one as it is not ethical to expect the release maintainer who is one person to make the many patches apply when the submitter who is one person merely has to make one patch apply. One thing which will greatly reduce the burden of #2 is the RM's planned use of topic branches. Merge conflicts are much easier to manage and far less overwhelming with the use of topic branches. Suggestions and opinions are welcome. Kind Regards, Chris Nighswonger Koha 3.2 Release Maintainer

2 2