https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=20271
--- Comment #216 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.dru...@bugs.koha-community.org> --- (In reply to Tomás Cohen Arazi from comment #212) > Nice work everyone! I've been looking at the code and so far would like to > mention: > - I would prefer 'archived' instead of 'deleted' in the chosen terminology. > And reserve 'delete' for permanent deletion. There is deleted_on and is_current (comment 198 and later for the discussion). > - I'd suggest we split this bug into separate ones for each case to ease > testing and have more people onboard. I know it might be frustrating to read > this, but I think it is the best. There is 2 years history in those commits, splitting them will break everything and add lot of work. I won't do that. I can help to push this one until the finish line but as it. > - In light of the work on the *reserves tables that was announced today, I'd > suggest we review the column names (this could be done in a follow-up bug, > but worth thinking about. That's definitely something different. > - With the same spirit as the above comment, having views for the 'old > tables' might be a good idea. For the reports then you mean? I would personally prefer to add a warning in the report table if the deleted tables are used, but we could add a view. Adding views mean that we will keep them forever? If yes it will add work to maintain them, otherwise when are we going to remove them? Like 1 year after? 2 years? > - Can we merge biblio and biblioitems here? Definitely out of the scope. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org https://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/
