[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Supported releases

[Daniel Wells]

Based on feedback here and on the bug as well, I have removed the
webstaffblocker tag.  Better throw that 3.1 retirement party quick before
another blocker pops up ;)

Dan


On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 5:44 PM Bill Erickson <berickxx at gmail.com> wrote:

> +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/20200723/d6452687/attachment.html>