[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] In the pipeline

[John Fink]

Apologies for the lateness on the weekly news front.  I swear I'm
going to do it, hopefully on Monday or Tuesday - got a couple of weeks
of commits to burn through and try to make sense of. :)

jf

On 10/27/07, Dan Scott <denials at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21/06/2007, Mike Rylander <mrylander at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So we're coming up on the 1.2.0 release of Evergreen, which is quite a
> > milestone.  The 1.1 branch has diverged a good bit from 1.0, both on
> > the front end
> >
> >   * I18N is beginning to look real-ish in the OPAC
> >   * there's a shiny new report templating interface
> >   * many things have been sped up
> >
> > and on the back end
> >
> >   * installation is much less rough
> >   * the indexing is more flexible
> >   * the low-level storage access is more powerful
> >
> > And that's not even getting to all the cleanup and bug-fix patches
> > that have been sent to us.
> >
> > There are still a couple things we want to get in before we cut the
> > first RC.  There may be some OpenSRF reorganization (it's its own
> > project now) and there are some security and permission enhancements I
> > really want to get done.
> >
> > After we get to that point, we have big plans for the 1.3 dev branch
> >
> >   * full I18N
> >   * tons of OPAC enhancements (many of which will move back into 1.2)
> >   * Java client (and probably server) support
> >   * simpler index configuration
> >   * full NACO-normalized authority linking and tracing
> >   * hold freezing
> >   * faceting and new browse interfaces
> >   * exposing of the advanced search syntax
> >
> > just to name a few.  We'll probably see some early betas of the ACQ
> > and serials systems during the 1.3 cycle, though I'm not going to
> > promise that for 1.4 -- which will be out some time in the fall, if
> > all goes well.
> >
> > Anyway, I wanted to get this out there (thanks, Dan, for poking me
> > about this -- and I'm only a week late!) so that others can start to
> > get a feel for where we're heading.  We've a long road ahead, but we
> > have a good working base.  As more of you get involved in every area
> > progress will speed up.
> >
> > It's obvious to me that we're on the right track, and I can't wait to
> > see what we all come up with in the future!
> >
> > Thank you, all of you, and keep up the great work.
> >
> > --
> > Mike Rylander
> >
>
> I'm going to poke again -- apologies :)
>
> Since we got the 1.2.0 release out in September (huzzah!), naturally I would
> expect to see the 1.4 release pushed out from a Fall time frame to a Winter
> time frame. Are we still good with the plans for the 1.3 development branch?
> Certainly the i18n support is coming along, the Java client / server support
> is pretty much in place, a bunch of the hold freezing stuff has been going
> into trunk, and there has been some movement on the acq/ser system (albeit
> not much code that people can play with yet). On the simplified index
> configuration, I'm not sure if we were aiming higher than simply dropping
> the stopwords (which certainly was a big step forward). I'm also not sure
> where we are with the NACO-normalized authority linking and tracing work; I
> imagine this would sync up with whatever authority management interface we
> would be able to develop. I confess to not knowing what "exposing the
> advanced search syntax" is... just documenting the current OPAC search
> interface (as I half-assedly did earlier this week)? Or documenting REST
> interfaces & unAPI for generating XML search results / MARC record export /
> other hidden gems? The latter would certainly be cool.
>
> I'd also like to point out that the "Development Roadmap" linked from the
> front page of the wiki (
> http://open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=feature_list) is rather dangerously
> out of date for those who might not be following the mailing lists. I was
> promised flying cars, dangit!
>
> Would this be a good time to revisit the roadmap and sync up the wiki entry
> with reality? Ideally, each entry in the roadmap would link to a fuller
> description of the plans for that particular entry (so that those with the
> required chops could jump in and help push that piece of the project
> forward).
>
> Perhaps we could set up a recurring monthly or bimonthly appointment to
> revisit the development roadmap and adjust it back to reality... You never
> know when someone will have been beavering away on a project on their own
> for a while and suddenly have a telephony system to merge into trunk :) I
> realize this isn't a particularly agile approach, but communication (within
> the development team, within the community, and externally to those
> interested in the project) is a huge piece of any open source project, and
> until there are more community members helping us with that communication
> (here's another call for an "Evergreen Weekly News" writer and for
> http://open-ils.org/blog writers), we're going to have to keep shouldering
> that burden.
>
> --
> Dan Scott
> Laurentian University
>


-- 
http://libgrunt.blogspot.com -- library culture and technology.