After the KohaCon, we have submitted 9 branches with a lot of patches to be integrated to 3.4 A page has been opened to summarize that: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/BibLibre_patches_to_be_integrated_for_3.... Here is the status as of today : * 3 branches have been merged: admin / reports / serials * 2 branches are awaiting qa: the big one (related to circulation & members changes, see our RFCs on the wiki and #5575 on bugzilla. I have reset/recommited all the patches to have only 50+ patches instead of 200+) and the cataloguing one (that is quite large too, #5574) * I've sent a pull request for 3 branches : OPAC (#5584), authorities (#5581), acquisition (#5580) I won't sent a pull request on the various branch : looking carefully at it, it contains a lot of usefull things, but they are related to a lot of various things and can/will be splitted in smaller patches. we will split them and send the patches "one by one". Important notice: chris said yesterday at the irc meeting that the move to template::toolkit should be merged into master on feb. It means it becomes urgent to do QA on those branches & integrate them into master. It must be done before we move to T::T, or it will request too much work to be integrated. That's why I propose 2 IRC to work on the 2 main branches (circ / cataloguing). * proposed circ IRC qa-meeting: jan, 11th, from 12GMT to 14GMT, AND from 20GMT to 22GMT * proposed cataloguing qa-meeting: jan, 17th, from 12GMT to 14GMT, AND from 20GMT to 22GMT For those meetings, i'll setup a fresh install for ppl to test & give feedback. If someone want to test & give feedback before or after the meetings, feel free to add comments to the bugs. I know those branches are quite large, and it will be hard to signoff them, so I suggest ppl doing some tests add a comment on the BZ entry, to let chris know they have tested (thx to owen that already added an entry to #5574, that i'll fix asap) -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
On 06/01/11 15:04, Paul Poulain wrote:
After the KohaCon, we have submitted 9 branches with a lot of patches to be integrated to 3.4
* I've sent a pull request for 3 branches : OPAC (#5584), authorities (#5581), acquisition (#5580)
On the acquisitions, I think this patch is a bit suspect without as syspref as it deletes items and biblios and I think that may conflict with how many people want their workflow
commit a0854683dbfcd44de390dd87afccffca786c57a3 Author: Jean-André Santoni <jeanandre.santoni@biblibre.com> Date: Thu Aug 19 15:04:46 2010 +0200
(bug #4110) Delete items from aq order
The are some regressions from some things addressed in master in that branch. That needs further testing. In the authorities branch there are the addition of some install files for UNIMARC in French. I'm assuming they could be signed off and pushed as is, can you confirm? They should not be dependent on the rest of the branch. (i.e. the search authorities change appears to fix some cases but break some currently working behaviour -- needs further testing to determine) Cheers Colin -- Colin Campbell Chief Software Engineer, PTFS Europe Limited Content Management and Library Solutions +44 (0) 845 557 5634 (phone) +44 (0) 7759 633626 (mobile) colin.campbell@ptfs-europe.com skype: colin_campbell2 http://www.ptfs-europe.com
Le 06/01/2011 17:48, Colin Campbell a écrit :
On 06/01/11 15:04, Paul Poulain wrote:
After the KohaCon, we have submitted 9 branches with a lot of patches to be integrated to 3.4 Hi Colin, (thx for the quick feedback) * I've sent a pull request for 3 branches : OPAC (#5584), authorities (#5581), acquisition (#5580) On the acquisitions, I think this patch is a bit suspect without as syspref as it deletes items and biblios and I think that may conflict with how many people want their workflow commit a0854683dbfcd44de390dd87afccffca786c57a3 Author: Jean-André Santoni <jeanandre.santoni@biblibre.com> Date: Thu Aug 19 15:04:46 2010 +0200
(bug #4110) Delete items from aq order For the item, I don't think so : you can't delete an order once the basket has been closed. So, it's usually related to an order placed by mistake. So you don't have the item, and if you delete the order line (because no more budget, or you choose a wrong supplier), then it's good to delete the item as well. I can't see a case where it functionnally relevant to delete the order line and not the item
For the biblio, this can be discussed. But most of our libraries think that it's better to delete the biblio if there are no more items. Usually, the case is : * I added an order, that created item & biblio * oups, made a mistake (no more budget available, or wrong supplier) * delete the order * forget it => useless biblio remaining in the catalogue => library & users unhappy. If you hadn't the "forget it" line, I would agree. But when saying libraries : "hey, don't forget to delete the biblio when you delete the order, it's still here, it's usefull if you plan to order the book to someone else", they answer: 'i'll forget that the biblio is here, and create it again, resulting in 2 biblios in the catalogue' So we decided to delete the biblio as well.
The are some regressions from some things addressed in master in that branch. That needs further testing.
In the authorities branch there are the addition of some install files for UNIMARC in French. I'm assuming they could be signed off and pushed as is, can you confirm? They should not be dependent on the rest of the branch. (i.e. the search authorities change appears to fix some cases but break some currently working behaviour -- needs further testing to determine) Some yes, but as it's written in one commit, there is a "default" authority now, that can be used for searching on all authority types. and we did not the MARC21 version of the default authority.
-- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
On 06/01/11 16:59, Paul Poulain wrote:
For the biblio, this can be discussed. But most of our libraries think that it's better to delete the biblio if there are no more items. Usually, the case is : * I added an order, that created item & biblio * oups, made a mistake (no more budget available, or wrong supplier) * delete the order * forget it => useless biblio remaining in the catalogue => library & users unhappy.
If you hadn't the "forget it" line, I would agree.
I'm thinking of biblios which may relate to subscriptions, electronic_resources, or be related to edifact info. These may well have zero copies but you don't want them removed because one of their orderlines was removed. Colin -- Colin Campbell Chief Software Engineer, PTFS Europe Limited Content Management and Library Solutions +44 (0) 845 557 5634 (phone) +44 (0) 7759 633626 (mobile) colin.campbell@ptfs-europe.com skype: colin_campbell2 http://www.ptfs-europe.com
Le 06/01/2011 18:55, Colin Campbell a écrit :
I'm thinking of biblios which may relate to subscriptions, electronic_resources, or be related to edifact info. These may well have zero copies but you don't want them removed because one of their orderlines was removed maybe a confirmation request when removing the order would be the best in this case.
Something like: "you're about to delete the last item of this biblio do you want to delete the biblio as well Y/N ?" I think it would be better than a syspref, it gives the control back to the librarian. cheers -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
On 07/01/11 07:44, Paul Poulain wrote:
Le 06/01/2011 18:55, Colin Campbell a écrit :
I'm thinking of biblios which may relate to subscriptions, electronic_resources, or be related to edifact info. These may well have zero copies but you don't want them removed because one of their orderlines was removed maybe a confirmation request when removing the order would be the best in this case.
Something like: "you're about to delete the last item of this biblio do you want to delete the biblio as well Y/N ?" I think it would be better than a syspref, it gives the control back to the librarian.
That would be a good solution. Cheers Colin -- Colin Campbell Chief Software Engineer, PTFS Europe Limited Content Management and Library Solutions +44 (0) 845 557 5634 (phone) +44 (0) 7759 633626 (mobile) colin.campbell@ptfs-europe.com skype: colin_campbell2 http://www.ptfs-europe.com
participants (2)
-
Colin Campbell -
Paul Poulain