On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Kevin Kierans <[email protected]> wrote: > Meta-records > > Before we migrated to Evergreen we painfully separated our paperbacks and > hardcovers into separate bib records. Until then we'd attached paperbacks > and hardcovers to the same bib record because, all things considered (the > hold queue and patron satisfaction), this made sense. But (we thought) > with meta-records and advanced holds, we could allow patrons to choose what > they wanted to include when they place their holds. > > Except, in our consortium, meta-holds included things (formats and copies) > from other libraries outside our org unit, things the patron was never going > to get, because we don't lend between org units. Unhappy confused patrons. > So we turned it off. > > But it's still a good idea. Holds are a big part of our business here. And > if meta-records can be tuned so you can include or not certain formats, and > if holds can "respect" org boundaries, then we 'd like to see it back. >
This commit ( http://git.evergreen-ils.org/?p=Evergreen.git;a=commitdiff;h=ff7ea322f7d9010643760f01f201a6329209763c ) seems to take care of what you want, at least in terms of respecting the selection_depth on the hold (which is set by the Hard Boundary OU setting). That may not be backportable on its own, but probably needs (at least) e16c8b771ecc2b57cadbc27f6677eb7fe44578e1 as well. -- Mike Rylander | Director of Research and Development | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) | email: [email protected] | web: http://www.esilibrary.com
