http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14610
Brendan Gallagher <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] | |m --- Comment #128 from Brendan Gallagher <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #127) > First I've seen this bug, I like the feature as a whole.. > > From a QA perspective I think I agree with Katrin and Jonathan. As much as > I'm not as totally against splitting up some of the code into smaller more > manageable files I think having a standard approach to coding this stuff is > important for developers to adopts and adhere to, and I feel there isn't > sufficient reasoning here to split the script into multiple smaller scripts. > A clearly written $op eq '' set is pretty darn clear and it makes the > relation between tt -> pl and pm clearer too. > > I'd prefer the single script approach here. After doing some searching through the code, I don't see what Kyle is proposing, as a new model (there are some examples where this is the case). Also, stated above the individual .pl files don't have an association with the tt. Since this isn't a new model, should we reject it based on that? I just am not crazy about seeing a developer spend time on a development (that has followed other models), and have to rewrite the code. Also to be clear, I see validity in both approaches (not one over the other). My worry is just the amount of time it would take to consolidate something that isn't a "new" way of development. Perhaps that time spent could be used towards other areas of Koha? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
