> I would personally prefer to designate a master record rather than select > fields from one or more records when merging, but only because I think the > interface would be easier. :)
I'd be tempted to work on this from the angle of fleshing out User Buckets, with some sort of batch patron editor, but yeah, it'd definitely be easier not to. :D > I don't see any trivial way to allow for un-merging either, but maybe I'm > missing something. Maybe if everything does end up getting linked to actor.card, we could then have a previous_usr field on actor.card. So unmerging would be moving the card to a previously inactivated (can't delete in this case) actor.usr record? > This is starting to sound a little complicated, but I think that just means > we're doing it right. ;-) :D -- Jason Etheridge | VP, Community Support and Advocacy | Equinox Software, Inc. / The Evergreen Experts | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | web: http://www.esilibrary.com
