https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=32565
--- Comment #18 from Pedro Amorim <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #15) > This is similar to another bug we filed 3467 > > Pedro, if you want to pursue something different here I am happy to move my > patches to that bug. Otherwise we could combine the two Hey, thanks Nick! Yeah, I think bug 34676 should definitely be made a duplicate of this. I've signed-off and I believe this is good to go, although I have 2 observations: 1) With this new enhancement, would there ever be a situation where using RTHQ without the cron build_holds_queue.pl --force --unallocated be advisable? In other words, it seems that it would always be beneficial to run RTHQ in conjunction with the cron build_holds_queue.pl --force --unallocated, in order to catch unallocated holds "just in case". If the above is true, we're moving from: "It's recommended to use RTHQ or the build_holds_queue.pl cron, not both" to "RTHQ should be used in conjunction with build_holds_queue.pl --force --unallocated cron". This works, but it may be confusing in terms of system administration. Maybe not, ignore if that's the case. 2) Should we rename the unallocated option to unallocated-only to make it clearer? We're not adding "unallocated" on top of what the script already does, instead we're making the script consider unallocated holds only, correct? Ignore if not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] 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/
