Thank you for that assessment Galen. I'll note that the bugs that gave me the biggest concern were in the small category. The type to selection bug is indeed a big issue, particularly for large consortia who have to navigate through a large list of libraries. But my largest concern are with those bugs that don't have a good workaround aside from performing the action in the xul client.
Kathy -- Kathy Lussier Project Coordinator Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative (508) 343-0128kluss...@masslnc.org On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:23 PM Galen Charlton <g...@equinoxinitiative.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Here's my classification of the current open bugs tagged as > webstaffblocker: > > Small (i.e., likely can be fixed in two weeks) > --------------------------------------- > https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1773191 Untranslatable Last > Billing Type values > https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1770959 Web staff client: > strings translated via staff client are displayed untranslated > https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1781641 Web Client: Cannot > Override Patron Message Block > https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1781235 Web Client: > Sometimes Unable to Change Primary Patron Barcode within "See All" Box > https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1746536 web client: cannot > edit vol/call number in item status > https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1745427 Web Client: Serials > - Predict New Issues Defaults to Previous Pattern > https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1552778 Web client check-in > "effective date" and check-out "specific due date" should also include > times > > Higher-effort > ------------- > https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1511742 webclient: Need > ability to type to selection in some menus > > Patch exists, may need some tweaks > ---------------------------------- > https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1755258 webclient: LDAP not > working -- but works for stand alone client > > Overall, I think we can reasonably hope to resolve these over the next > couple weeks, although I specifically want to call out LP#1511742 as > the one bug that I think will require the most effort. > > Consequently, I am +1 for planning on disabling the XUL client in 3.2, > especially in light of plans for extending the support period for 3.1, > but do think that this decision needs to be evaluated and finalized at > the end of the upcoming bug-squashing week. > > Regards, > > Galen > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:57 AM Bill Erickson <beric...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > > > > -- > Galen Charlton > Implementation and Services Manager > Equinox Open Library Initiative > phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) > email: g...@equinoxinitiative.org > web: https://equinoxInitiative.org > direct: +1 770-709-5581 > cell: +1 404-984-4366 >
