Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

Hi Ben, Are you referring to the bug where copies cannot be edited after a part has been assigned? If so, that bug has been fixed. https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1739271 Kathy On Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 12:53 PM Benjamin Kalish wrote: > Hopefully this is missing from the webstaffblocker

Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

I'm +1 to remove. For anyone at CW MARS concerned about that vote, I can always keep the 3.0/3.1 XUL client working by leaving the files in place on the server. Jason

Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

+1 remove -Blake- Conducting Magic MOBIUS

Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

Noting for the record that bug 1739290 is on Equinox's community-funded Cataloging Bugfix list, and we do anticipate having a fix in time for 3.2 -- which should also fix blocker 1746536 , and non-blocker

Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

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 wrote: > I'm also +1 for removal. We've been planning for it since 3.0; may as well >

Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

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

Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

I'm +0.5 to removal. Thanks, all. -- Mike Rylander | Executive Director | Equinox Open Library Initiative | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) | email: mi...@equinoxinitiative.org | web: http://equinoxinitiative.org On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:09 PM Bill Erickson wrote: > > For the reasons

Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

For the reasons mentioned by Ben and Galen, I am also +1 for removal. I also prefer we remove before bug squashing week so we can get it out of the way, with option to revert later if some new serious problem surfaces. And just to have some skin in the game, between Kyle and I, we will resolve

Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

Hopefully this is missing from the webstaffblocker list because it's already been fixed, but I couldn't confirm that on launchpad. We've had an ongoing problem where item status changes made from "Edit Item Attributes" in the web client are not saved, and the only workaround we've found at my

Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

One other idea that just popped into my head that we might want to discuss is potentially keeping XUL in Evergreen, but deciding to end all the i18n processes related to it. By now, strings should be relatively static, so template changes should no longer be occurring (though sometimes I've been

Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

Thank you for that assessment Galen. I'll note that the bugs that gave me the biggest concern were in the small category. The type to selection bug is indeed a big issue, particularly for large consortia who have to navigate through a large list of libraries. But my largest concern are with those

Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

Hi, Here's my classification of the current open bugs tagged as webstaffblocker: Small (i.e., likely can be fixed in two weeks) --- https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1773191 Untranslatable Last Billing Type values

Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

I vote "yes" to getting rid of XUL now. >From i18n side of things, we've been working around the problems with running the translation process with our old XUL code by using the older template toolkit set from Ubuntu 14.04. That Ubuntu version is EOL next year April 2019, and I'd rather not have

Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

Based on what I know today, I reluctantly vote against removal. There are some bugs in that list with no other current workaround except to use the xul client to perform an action. I would happily change my vote in a couple of weeks if more progress were made on some of the webstaffblockers.

[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

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