On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:26 AM, MJ Ray <[email protected]> wrote: > That's not a reason in favour of Liblime 4.2. Most Koha developers > develop features that libraries request - and then submit them > promptly to the community, unlike Liblime.
This is particularly dense, MJ. The features present in LK4.2 are already paid for. A library using it would not have to pay LibLime or anyone else in order to be able to take advantage of them. > A couple of firms even > develop features to provide a service to libraries as our basic > missions, rather than to provide a profit to external investors in > a company that bought a business that bought a business. > ... and now the sermon. And who *sold* that original business? > Actually, you're mistaken: Koha 3.4 can handle those. > Glad to be mistaken, then. It's a feature that a lot of libraries need. > The underlying > structural bug released by the 3.0 release manager (from Liblime) has > been fixed in 3.4. There are some consequences, but there are other > capacity-improvement patches and branches to cure them linked from the > wiki if anyone wants them before they are included in a future Koha > release. > The resounding chorus in all of your messages seems to be "It's Josh's fault!" > So that isn't a reason for a library to be cut off from the global > community by using the already-obsolete Liblime 4.2. This is FUD, pure and simple. Is community Koha 3.2 "already-obsolete" because it's not the most current version? We've already pushed out two sets of updates since the initial 4.2 release. Regards, Clay
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
