[OPEN-ILS-DEV] [RM] Call for roadmap entries for Evergreen 3.0

Fri Nov 13 09:52:33 EST 2015

Hi,

Moving back to the topic of the roadmap, the Wiki page is now:

http://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=faqs:evergreen_roadmap:2.10

If you are working on new features or enhancements that you expect to
be ready in time to make it into 2.10, please update the wiki page
today or reply to me with your additions.  Next week, I'll start
contacting folks individually if they (or their organization) is a
frequent code contributor but they haven't yet updated the roadmap.

Regards,

Galen

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Galen Charlton <gmc at esilibrary.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I will draw the version discussion to a close then, and use 2.10.
>
> I am doing so on the basis that the majority of folks who have cared
> to speak up have expressed a preference that a a firm criterion be
> established for cutting a 3.0: availability of the web staff interface
> for all modules and (presumably at the same time) deprecation of the
> XUL client.  If that's the criterion, let's please stick to it unless
> some unexpected new work that's at least as important as webstaff
> shows up.
>
> However, in order to ultimately reach 3.0, it is important that at
> least several, if not many, Evergreen libraries actually use the parts
> of the browser client that are deemed production-ready. My release
> goal of having the webstaff patron and circulation modules be
> officially supported in the spring 2016 release remains in place. If
> that goal is met, I hope that folks will not stint in their PR efforts
> so as to encourage broader use and development of the browser client.
>
> Regards,
>
> Galen
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As much as I try to avoid getting involved in release numbering discussions,
>> I will say I agree with Chris, Jason, and Jim.
>>
>> I think the community should make a big PR splash when the full client is
>> ready for production use, and the PR splash will be more meaningful with a
>> big version jump at the same time.
>>
>> There have been a few moments in the 2.x series when we could have jumped to
>> 3.0, particularly when template toolkit was ready for production. We've
>> waited this long to make the jump, I think we can wait a little longer until
>> the web client is fully ready.
>>
>> Having said that, I'm not going to beat a dead horse if the ultimate
>> decision is to go to 3.0
>>
>> Kathy
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/09/2015 01:52 PM, James Keenan wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with Chris and Jason. I also think, as Galen mentioned, 2.10 is an
>>> alright version number.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> Jim Keenan
>>> Library Applications Supervisor
>>> jkeenan at cwmars.org
>>> 508-755-3323 x23
>>>   C/W MARS
>>> 67 Millbrook St., Suite 201
>>> Worcester, MA 01606
>>>
>>>    Save a tree! Please don't print this e-mail unless it's really
>>> necessary.
>>> Currently reading Swansong 1945  by Walter Kempowski.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Open-ils-dev [mailto:open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Jason Stephenson
>>> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 9:43 AM
>>> To: Evergreen Development Discussion List
>>> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] [RM] Call for roadmap entries for Evergreen
>>> 3.0
>>>
>>> Quoting Chris Sharp <csharp at georgialibraries.org>:
>>>
>>>> I think the criterion for a "3.0" release is pretty straightforward.
>>>>   If the web client will be fully usable in all major functionality
>>>> (Circulation, Cataloging, Administration, Acquisitions), with multiple
>>>> printer options and standalone in place and easily installable by a
>>>> reasonably experienced Windows administrator, we should call it 3.0
>>>> and have a big splash news release about it.  If not, I think we
>>>> should go with 2.10.
>>>>
>>>> I agree that beating the dead horse of release numbering in general is
>>>> not productive, but as with 2.0 several years ago, 3.0 should mean
>>>> more than "that number was next".
>>>
>>> I just want to say that for the most part, I agree with Chris. I'm not
>>> married to version numbers, but I've long thought 3.0 should be reserved for
>>> when the browser staff client is recommended over the XUL client.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jason Stephenson
>>> Assistant Director for Technology Services Merrimack Valley Library
>>> Consortium
>>> 4 High ST, Suite 175
>>> North Andover, MA 01845
>>> Phone: 978-557-5891
>>> Email: jstephenson at mvlc.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Kathy Lussier
>> Project Coordinator
>> Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
>> (508) 343-0128
>> klussier at masslnc.org
>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Galen Charlton
> Infrastructure and Added Services Manager
> Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
> email:  gmc at esilibrary.com
> direct: +1 770-709-5581
> cell:   +1 404-984-4366
> skype:  gmcharlt
> web:    http://www.esilibrary.com/
> Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
> http://evergreen-ils.org

-- 
Galen Charlton
Infrastructure and Added Services Manager
Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
email:  gmc at esilibrary.com
direct: +1 770-709-5581
cell:   +1 404-984-4366
skype:  gmcharlt
web:    http://www.esilibrary.com/
Supporting Koha and Evergreen: http://koha-community.org &
http://evergreen-ils.org