[OPEN-ILS-DEV] 2.1 Status and Blocking Bugs Request

[Duimovich, George]

No opinion here on EDI.

Re: Upgrade script, we also expect to run into "local issue" outlined here:

	Line 2623 - create unique call number index issues
	http://markmail.org/message/p3ot52bh2eyqk5gz

Wonder if that might be more common than local? 

FWIW, we're catching some of our duplicates with this sql: 

select acn.label, acn.owning_lib, acn.record, count(acn.label) from asset.call_number as acn inner join
asset.call_number as acn2 on acn.label = acn2.label
where acn.owning_lib = acn2.owning_lib and acn.record = acn2.record and acn.id != acn2.id
group by acn.label, acn.owning_lib, acn.record

Perhaps add as comment to upgrade script (i.e. if create index fails, check for duplicate labels with sample sql, etc.)?

I'd like to see auto-updating authorities working in 2.1 (e.g. http://goo.gl/r2jXs & http://goo.gl/pwDiU) but not a blocker and those two reports may be unique to our setting only (have open ticket with ESI). It's a really killer feature for cataloguers so anxious to get that working for us.

Thanks,
George

George Duimovich
NRCan Library / Bibliothèque de RNCan



-----Original Message-----
From: open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [mailto:open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Berezansky
Sent: August 30, 2011 13:06
To: Evergreen Development Discussion
Subject: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] 2.1 Status and Blocking Bugs Request

During the developer meeting today 2.1's status was discussed. The following is what came of it:

Mike Rylander is working on a few last-minute fixes, as well as creating launchpad bugs for tracking them.

EDI was discussed in that it has known issues with a lot of real-world data. See bugs:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/817653
https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/812593

We did not come to a consensus on whether or not these issues should be blocking the release of 2.1, and opted to push that question to the dev list.

Should these issues be considered blocking for 2.1's release?

In addition, are there any other outstanding issues that anyone feels should be blocking 2.1?

Outside of that, the upgrade script will need a final review, after which it appears we would like to officially release 2.1.0, rather than another release candidate.

Thomas Berezansky
Merrimack Valley Library Consortium