+1 saying goodbye to 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. I also agree the webstaffblocker tag should not have been applied to 1773191 <https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1773191>.
-b On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 4:00 PM Jason Boyer <[email protected]> wrote: > I would agree that tag should never have been applied to that bug since as > you mentioned, things were no different in the xml client. With that tag > removed we can let the sun set on 3.1 and hopefully that branch will make a > nice incentive to upgrade to 3.6. :) > > Jason > > -- > Jason Boyer > Senior System Administrator > Equinox Open Library Initiative > phone: +1 (877) Open-ILS (673-6457) > email: [email protected] <[email protected]> > web: https://EquinoxInitiative.org/ > > On Jul 22, 2020, at 3:41 PM, Daniel Wells <[email protected]> wrote: > > Our initial agreement was to keep 3.1 in at least a security-only support > mode until every "webstaffblocker" had been dealt with. I think we should > keep to our word on that. > > There is just one open bug with that tag: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1773191 > > The bug has some movement, so maybe it can be closed out without much more > work. Short of that, though, I would actually advocate we just remove the > tag from that bug. A "webstaffblocker", in my opinion, was some process or > function which worked fine in the old client but was completely broken or > missing in the new. The translatability of these strings is certainly a > legitimate bug, but the issue is structural and transcends the particular > client (though the problem may be more exposed in the new client, I cannot > quite tell). > > Any objections to removing that tag? Then we can put 3.1 peacefully to > rest. Bonus points for actually testing and signing off instead :) > > Sincerely, > Dan > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jason Stephenson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Galen, >> >> I pretty much agree, though I would not have suggested one more release >> of 3.3. It is more than OK with me, though. >> >> I am also in favor of dropping 3.1, unless someone wants to maintain it. >> That someone not being me. :) >> >> I recently pushed the branch for https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1886852 >> to 3.4, 3.5, and master. If I had thought that 3.3 was still open for >> bug fixes, I would have pushed it there, too. I'm not sure how important >> people feel that fix is, though it would apply cleanly, except for a >> conflict with the version line 002.schema.config.sql. >> >> Cheers, >> Jason >> > >
