Based on feedback here and on the bug as well, I have removed the webstaffblocker tag. Better throw that 3.1 retirement party quick before another blocker pops up ;)
Dan On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 5:44 PM Bill Erickson <[email protected]> wrote: > +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 >>> >> >>
