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

[Ben Shum]

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 surprised or bug fixes change something).

This separates my i18n concerns from the primary XUL retention question.

I still vote "yes" though.

-- Ben
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:21 PM Ben Shum <ben at evergreener.net> wrote:
>
> 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 the community
> dealing with translation support for the old XUL code (which is
> already unsupported by modern template toolkit) past that point.  If
> we retain XUL in 3.2 and keep supporting it through late 2019 (as we
> usually do the 15 months of support), then we'll have to build in
> additional carryover processes for the release builders and
> maintainers to deal with.
>
> Things are already going to be complicated enough moving forward with
> i18n translation support in the new ang6, I'd prefer to keep us
> looking ahead rather than continuing to half-support broken legacy
> processes.
>
> -- Ben
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:08 PM Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Kathy
> >
> > --
> > Kathy Lussier
> > Project Coordinator
> > Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
> > (508) 343-0128
> > klussier at masslnc.org
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:57 AM Bill Erickson <berickxx at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 about outstanding webstaff blockers (a few were just added), would you vote to proceed with XUL removal?  Can I get a show of hands, yea or nay?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> -b
> >>
>
>
> --
> Benjamin Shum
> Evergreener



-- 
Benjamin Shum
Evergreener