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

[Boyer, Jason A]

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 thereabouts will be good enough without having to drag a mummified XUL all the way to 3.3.

Jason

--
Jason Boyer
MIS Supervisor
Indiana State Library
http://library.in.gov/

From: Open-ils-dev [mailto:open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Bill Erickson
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 11:57 AM
To: Public Open-ILS tech discussion <OPEN-ILS-DEV at list.georgialibraries.org>
Subject: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Informal vote to apply XUL-removal patch to 3.2

**** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. ****
________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-dev/attachments/20180829/48f1f49a/attachment.html>