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

Mon Nov 16 16:56:50 EST 2015

Galen,

We would like to see the Overdrive integration make it into Evergreen.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1410537

Were you considering this for 2.10? If not, can I help in any way?

-Blake-
Conducting Magic
MOBIUS
573-234-4513
877-312-3517

On 11/13/2015 8:52 AM, Galen Charlton wrote:
> 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
>
>