I'm +1 for removal. I think the 3.1 extension provides both a usable safety valve and adequate incentive to clear the webstaff blockers in a timely manner.
Dan On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Boyer, Jason A <jbo...@library.in.gov> wrote: > I'm also +1 for removal. We've been planning for it since 3.0; may as well > pull off that band-aid. Those not ready will have extended 3.1 support > while the foolhardy (Hi!) can take the ship out to see and see what leaks. > If it's not 100% acceptable for everyone at 3.2.0, hopefully 3.2.2 or > thereabouts will be good enough without having to drag a mummified XUL all > the way to 3.3. > > > > Jason > > > > -- > > Jason Boyer > > MIS Supervisor > > Indiana State Library > > http://library.in.gov/ > > > > *From:* Open-ils-dev [mailto:open-ils-dev-bounces@ > list.georgialibraries.org] *On Behalf Of *Bill Erickson > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 29, 2018 11:57 AM > *To:* Public Open-ILS tech discussion <OPEN-ILS-DEV@list. > georgialibraries.org> > *Subject:* [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2 > > > > **** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments > or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. **** > ------------------------------ > > Devs, > > > > I'd like to have an informal vote on whether we should remove (well, > disable) the XUL client in 3.2. Delaying the decision is complicating the > release process. If it's clear which way the wind is blowing, we can set a > date for the final vote and patching. > > > > Knowing what you know today about outstanding webstaff blockers (a few > were just added), would you vote to proceed with XUL removal? Can I get a > show of hands, yea or nay? > > > > Thanks, > > > > -b > > >