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

Re: [Koha-devel] Koha.next: Consolidate OPAC themes?
by Quoc Uy 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

I agree with you that, each template should fit with the same html, css code, which is added by user in, for example, opacheader, opaccredit... i think we need more works to focus on this. i would love to learn how to write a patch and take a part in this. In relation with template, do you think about creating template for branches libraries? So earch branch library can create and manage their, for example, opac. Best regards! Nguyen Quoc Uy

1 0

Re: [Koha-devel] Koha numbering
by David Cook 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

I agree with Marcel and Owen. I don't think it's a good idea to jump from version 3.x to 14.x, and I think version numbering is an important discussion topic, since it affects how Koha is perceived by current and future users. Having worked in libraries for the past 6-7 years as library staff and not a developer, I can state with a high level of confidence that consistency almost always matters more in libraries than software conventions; it is logically consistent that version 3 be followed by 4. Like Owen said, if that varies, there are going to be questions. While we might debate the merits of different version numbering systems, I don't think we're going to be the ones answering these questions in most cases. They're going to be aimed at trainers, salespeople, and technical staff who might not be developers. With the exception of Nicole, the majority of these people might throw up their hands and say, "I have no idea why it went from 3 to 14. It's weird." In many cases, no questions might be asked. In either case, people might just make negative judgements about the reliability, predictability, and transparency of Koha, especially if the "reason" for changing version numbering systems isn't made explicitly and readily available. Personally, I think it would make Koha look bad. The more often a Koha front-person says "I don't know" or "that's weird", the worse that person looks and the worse Koha looks. I think the growing consensus of software users, interface designers, and sellers is "don't make me think". It should be intuitive. That said, maybe I'm projecting a bit of my own biases. Maybe there would be some confused conversation about why Koha went from 3 to 14, but after the majority started using 14 and upgrading from there, it might not be an issue, because that idea of consistency would be regained. As for whether or not users and libraries even look at version numbers...I imagine that the vast majority of people interacting directly with Koha never notice them. They don't appear in the OPAC and in the staff client it's tucked away in the system preferences and About page. The ones caring are likely to be the ones who manage Koha in-house or the people who liaise with support companies. In these cases, maybe it would be easy enough to say, "Oh, the community just decided to change how it numbered each version", but I think this discussion will quickly be lost to time and the average Koha user/developer will have no idea why it changed and as Owen said...I imagine people might wonder if/what they're missing by going from 3.x to 14.x. For me, I think the most logical end to this discussion is to decide on a goal/trigger to switch to 4.x, and to just continue 3.x until that goal/trigger is reached. David Cook Systems Librarian Prosentient Systems P/L ABN 31 078 409 168 72/330 Wattle St, Ultimo NSW 2007 tel: 02 92120899 fax: 02 92120885 dcook(a)prosentient.com.au -----Original Message----- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 12:10:30 +0000 From: Marcel de Rooy <M.de.Rooy(a)rijksmuseum.nl> To: "koha-devel(a)lists.koha-community.org" <koha-devel(a)lists.koha-community.org> Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] Koha numbering Message-ID: <809BE39CD64BFD4EB9036172EBCCFA310E20641A(a)S-MAIL-1B.rijksmuseum.intra> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cool discussion :) Here is my thought: If there is no big reason to jump to the next higher number (in this case 3->4) in some period, do it at least every so-much years. That is reason enough.. But please do not jump from 3 to 14 ! Marcel ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:45:25 -0400 From: Owen Leonard <oleonard(a)myacpl.org> To: "koha-devel(a)lists.koha-community.org" <koha-devel(a)lists.koha-community.org> Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] Koha numbering Message-ID: <CAO4qe2O9eCbyG8RhMaku7ZiKCJVq7u3qijCKO4_N7oU7=aQwfg(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I think this is a worthwhile discussion to have, and I'm actually in no hurry (yet) to cut it off. I think there are still aspects which need to be considered. Version numbering is important to different groups for different reasons. For developers, we need version numbering to keep track of where we are in the release cycle and to help us make judgements about how to manage and maintain previous releases. For users the version number gives them an indication about how important it is to upgrade. > But please do not jump from 3 to 14 ! When considering users, I think this is an important consideration. Jumping from 3 to 14 would be really confusing to users, and create expectations about what that version number means. Did we jump 11 version numbers because 3.14 is 11 version numbers better than 3.12? Did we jump 11 version numbers because a pseudo-Koha project has practiced version number inflation? No matter how well we communicate our reasons for switching numbering systems these questions are going to come up. Are we okay with that? I agree with those who worry that incrementing full version numbers like we did point releases before is going to make it more difficult for users to know how important it is to upgrade. As developers we know how much work goes into making 3.10 into 3.12, but users have to weigh a lot of factors when deciding whether and when to upgrade. Self-supporting libraries in particular may not have the resources to upgrade for every version. Will a new numbering scheme make this more difficult for them? All that said, I think it is problematic that we don't have a plan, under the current numbering scheme, to move from 3.x to 4.x. Just to muddy the waters more: What if we came up with a goal (or goals) to set to trigger the flip from 3 to 4, and then implemented the new version scheme from there? That would give the users the satisfaction of seeing a version jump, and give us some lead time to "sell" the new numbering scheme. With apologies to those who want this to be over, -- Owen -- Web Developer Athens County Public Libraries http://www.myacpl.org

4 3

Koha numbering
by Paul Poulain 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

Hello koha-devel, Throwing the question : after version 3.10, we're about to release 3.12, the next version is expected to be 3.14 My question is a small one : what does the "3." mean for us ? The 3.12 is really different from 3.0, that has been released 5 years ago. Remembering history, we switched from 1.x to 2.x when MARC support was added. We switched from 2.x to 3.x when zebra became our search engine. What could/should we expect to decide to switch to 4.x ? Another option I see could be to remove the "3." and name version 12.0, 12.1, 12.2, 14.0, 14.1,... (that would be fine for the current updatedatabase mechanism) Thoughts ? -- Paul POULAIN - BibLibre http://www.biblibre.com Free & Open Source Softwares for libraries Koha, Drupal, Piwik, Jasper

20 32

Re: [Koha-devel] Koha numbering
by Paul 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

At 04:07 PM 4/7/2013 -0400, Jared Camins-Esakov wrote: >But please do not jump from 3 to 14 ! > > >Good point. I added the following proposal to the agenda for the next IRC >meeting: When does the vote take place, and how does one join in? I've no experience whatsoever with "IRC", what's needed for software (if anything?) Or is there another way to vote? Thanks - Paul >* Vote on (NOT DISCUSS) the proposal to increment the major version for >every feature release starting after version 3.14, which is due to be >released on November 22, 2013 or so. This means that the version released >on or about May 22, 2014 will be called Koha 4.0.0. (added by jcamins, but >to be presented by someone who cares) > >If there is consensus that the vote should be on a different versioning >scheme, that is absolutely fine with me, please change it on the agenda. I >merely wrote the compromise position that I had the impression that people >were leaning towards. As I state on the item, I will not be presenting the >motion, but action beats talk ten times out of ten, so I took the step of >adding it to the agenda so that it can be voted on. > >Regards, >Jared > >-- >Jared Camins-Esakov >Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC >(phone) +1 (917) 727-3445 >(e-mail) <mailto:jcamins@cpbibliography.com>jcamins(a)cpbibliography.com >(web) <http://www.cpbibliography.com/>http://www.cpbibliography.com/ >_______________________________________________ >Koha-devel mailing list >Koha-devel(a)lists.koha-community.org >http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel >website : http://www.koha-community.org/ >git : http://git.koha-community.org/ >bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/ --- Maritime heritage and history, preservation and conservation, research and education through the written word and the arts. <http://NavalMarineArchive.com> and <http://UltraMarine.ca>

2 1

Re: [Koha-devel] Koha numbering
by Archives and Collections Society 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

At 04:07 PM 4/7/2013 -0400, Jared Camins-Esakov wrote: >But please do not jump from 3 to 14 ! > > >Good point. I added the following proposal to the agenda for the next IRC >meeting: When does the vote take place, and how does one join in? I've no experience whatsoever with "IRC", what's needed for software (if anything?) Or is there another way to vote? Thanks - Paul >* Vote on (NOT DISCUSS) the proposal to increment the major version for >every feature release starting after version 3.14, which is due to be >released on November 22, 2013 or so. This means that the version released >on or about May 22, 2014 will be called Koha 4.0.0. (added by jcamins, but >to be presented by someone who cares) > >If there is consensus that the vote should be on a different versioning >scheme, that is absolutely fine with me, please change it on the agenda. I >merely wrote the compromise position that I had the impression that people >were leaning towards. As I state on the item, I will not be presenting the >motion, but action beats talk ten times out of ten, so I took the step of >adding it to the agenda so that it can be voted on. > >Regards, >Jared > >-- >Jared Camins-Esakov >Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC >(phone) +1 (917) 727-3445 >(e-mail) <mailto:jcamins@cpbibliography.com>jcamins(a)cpbibliography.com >(web) <http://www.cpbibliography.com/>http://www.cpbibliography.com/ >_______________________________________________ >Koha-devel mailing list >Koha-devel(a)lists.koha-community.org >http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel >website : http://www.koha-community.org/ >git : http://git.koha-community.org/ >bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/

1 0

Re: [Koha-devel] Koha numbering
by BWS Johnson 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

Salvete! Thank you for that, Jared. Hopefully my mail won't be ate. When the initial thread started, I didn't really care. At this point, I feel like the spirit of the discussion has shifted from pure numbering to the development release cycle. I also am a little torn on the large number being symptomatic of a larger problem. Are we losing enhancements in the hustle? I'll flesh this out more when I get home and have thought on the plane. Cheers, Brooke

1 0

Bugs to sign off
by Chris Cormack 07 Apr '13

07 Apr '13

Now that bug 8770 has been signed off, there are no blockers left, however there is Bug 8252 which is marked critical. It is to do with UNIMARC searching, so if a UNIMARC user could test it that would be excellent. Then there are just 4 major 9986 9575 9414 5366 That will leave just 21 bugs to have their patches signed off, (maybe less depending on how my kids behave and if I can sign off some more today) Chris

2 1

Branching 3.12.x tomorrow
by Galen Charlton 05 Apr '13

05 Apr '13

Hi, Tomorrow I will be branching 3.12.x. Bugfixes required for the 3.12.0 release will be pushed to master first, then cherry-picked for 3.12.x. Jared and I will both be committing to the master branch until 3.12.0 is released, while Jared will be the sole person pushing to 3.12.x. As far as master is concerned, prior to the 3.12.0 release I will focus on pushing QA-ed bugfixes, but I may also push a few enhancements to master. I think it is very safe to assume that any enhancements pushed to master will not be cherry-picked to 3.12.x. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton Manager of Implementation Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts email: gmc(a)esilibrary.com direct: +1 770-709-5581 cell: +1 404-984-4366 skype: gmcharlt web: http://www.esilibrary.com/ Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org & http://evergreen-ils.org

2 3

Re: [Koha-devel] Koha numbering
by BWS Johnson 05 Apr '13

05 Apr '13

Salvete! You silly, silly man. Everyone knows that anything past nine isn't real maths. ;) xkcd.com/899/ I still mostly don't care how things are numbered. I care far more that thongs operate how they ought to. Cheers, Brooke

4 3

LTS support (branching the "Koha numbering" thread)
by Tomas Cohen Arazi 05 Apr '13

05 Apr '13

Maybe this could go into a different thread? I think is off-topic On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Paul <paul.a(a)aandc.org> wrote: > At 07:34 AM 4/5/2013 -0400, Kyle Hall wrote: > >> From what I've I've heard around the water cooler, we won't be switching >> to >> 4.x until there is some major change to the internal infrastructure of >> Koha >> ( like Solr support, or perhaps DBIx::Class support ). >> >> >> I think if were to ditch the traditional versioning system, that maybe the >> Ubuntu year/month style would. So a major release this month would be >> version 13.04. I'm not endorsing it, it's just a possibility ; ) >> > > I would very much like to see something along the "Ubuntu style" as > *production* is very different from development and product improvement > and/or security issues (which is great/marvelous, to be encouraged, the > life and soul of an open-source project, etc) > > Many (most?) production environments are based upon a two-year cycle with > security upgrades; this opinion based on the last twenty years of IT > proliferation out of my fifty years in IT. Enhancements come down to a > question of "is it really helpful in our environment?" and "what are the > risks/costs of modifying a working system?" (Some of us are more/less > blessed with a permanent sandbox capability and the time/resources to use > it beneficially for our commercial/charitable goals. But this should not be > relied upon.) > > A two year "LTS" cycle, with a further two years "support", plus one more > year of "not dropping off the edge of the world" works extremely well as a > policy principle, which I feel must be based upon a principle of "if it > ain't broke, don't fix it." (Ubuntu is slowly getting there - it's now > nearly trivial to limit apt-get upgrade to security issues only, and > consider product enhancements at a totally separate level. Could Koha do > the same with the "package" option? One of the reasons that I use tarballs > is the granularity of looking through the release notes for security > issues.) > I belive LTS could be a good thing for Koha. The main problem is that the effort needs to be done by someone. The current way of handling this ("version XX will be deprecated unless someone steps in as release maintainer") is a good approach in this scenario. If an institution (or group of them) is not ready for a major version jump, they should sponsor the maintenance of their current version. We plan to use 3.12 as soon as it gets stabilized until something really better arises. Version numbering *might* be related to LTS in the way we currentl name packages and things that need to be done to retain a certain version from a major upgrade. I'd go for the naming schema is used for virtualbox (for example): koha-common-3.10 koha-common-3.12 and so on. Regards To+

2 1