[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Supported releases

[Bill Erickson]

+1 saying goodbye to 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.

I also agree the webstaffblocker tag should not have been applied to 1773191
<https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1773191>.

-b

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 4:00 PM Jason Boyer <jboyer at equinoxinitiative.org>
wrote:

> I would agree that tag should never have been applied to that bug since as
> you mentioned, things were no different in the xml client. With that tag
> removed we can let the sun set on 3.1 and hopefully that branch will make a
> nice incentive to upgrade to 3.6. :)
>
> Jason
>
> --
> Jason Boyer
> Senior System Administrator
> Equinox Open Library Initiative
> phone:  +1 (877) Open-ILS (673-6457)
> email:  JBoyer at EquinoxInitiative.org <JBoyer at EquinoxInitiative.org>
> web:  https://EquinoxInitiative.org/
>
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 3:41 PM, Daniel Wells <dbwells at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Our initial agreement was to keep 3.1 in at least a security-only support
> mode until every "webstaffblocker" had been dealt with.  I think we should
> keep to our word on that.
>
> There is just one open bug with that tag:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1773191
>
> The bug has some movement, so maybe it can be closed out without much more
> work.  Short of that, though, I would actually advocate we just remove the
> tag from that bug.  A "webstaffblocker", in my opinion, was some process or
> function which worked fine in the old client but was completely broken or
> missing in the new.  The translatability of these strings is certainly a
> legitimate bug, but the issue is structural and transcends the particular
> client (though the problem may be more exposed in the new client, I cannot
> quite tell).
>
> Any objections to removing that tag?  Then we can put 3.1 peacefully to
> rest.  Bonus points for actually testing and signing off instead :)
>
> Sincerely,
> Dan
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jason Stephenson <jason at sigio.com> wrote:
>
>> Galen,
>>
>> I pretty much agree, though I would not have suggested one more release
>> of 3.3. It is more than OK with me, though.
>>
>> I am also in favor of dropping 3.1, unless someone wants to maintain it.
>> That someone not being me. :)
>>
>> I recently pushed the branch for https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1886852
>> to 3.4, 3.5, and master. If I had thought that 3.3 was still open for
>> bug fixes, I would have pushed it there, too. I'm not sure how important
>> people feel that fix is, though it would apply cleanly, except for a
>> conflict with the version line 002.schema.config.sql.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jason
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-dev/attachments/20200722/98756b7c/attachment-0001.html>