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

[Daniel Wells]

I'm +1 for removal.  I think the 3.1 extension provides both a usable
safety valve and adequate incentive to clear the webstaff blockers in a
timely manner.

Dan

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:40 PM, Boyer, Jason A <JBoyer at library.in.gov>
wrote:

> 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@
> 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/d8ed84f8/attachment-0001.html>