[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Ongoing conversion effort

[Atre, Anoop S]

The attribution missing was an over sight, the script contained the information but was lost during copy over. I've updated the bug entry with the script and some comments (warnings), if we want to make it available in the repository please do.

Cheers
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anoop Atre
IS Developer & Integrator, MnPALS
PH: 507.389.5060
OF: 3022 Memorial Library (Office-ML 3022)
--
"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens"
 ~ Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller
________________________________________
From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] on behalf of Dan Scott [dan at coffeecode.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2011 7:41 AM
To: Evergreen Discussion Group
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Ongoing conversion effort

On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 10:45:26PM -0600, John Morris wrote:
> ARGH!  Found it.  You submitted a bug report (#727595) and someone
> responded to the 'problem' by nuking the whole page from the docs!  So
> now how do I find that useful information again?

John:

If your use of quotes is an attempt to dismiss my concern that our
project needs to properly attribute the provenance of its code, whether
contained in the docs or in the code repository, well... I'm not sure
how to respond. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to be a matter of basic
legal hygiene.

I suggested various methods to address the issue that I raised, none of
which were the immediate removal of that page from the docs, but I
assume the docs maintainer opted to take that approach as the most
conservative method and most protective of the project. I can't fault
him for that.

As for what appeared to be an ancestor of that script, which also
contains brief descriptions of each script along with suggested
schedules for when they should be run, I pointed to it from the bug
report in both the wiki and the relative directory within the source
code. Presumably you found this wanting, or else you wouldn't have
posted to the Evergreen General mailing list.

If you have alternative suggestions for addressing the problem - for
example, finding out who contributed the revised code to the docs and
asking them to contribute their revisions to the code repository along
with maintaining the provenance of the original script (if that is
indeed what happened) - I suggest using the bug report itself as the
correct forum for contributing your part to the resolution of the
problem.