[Koha-devel] News of BibLibre patches

[Paul Poulain]

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 at 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