Hello developers,
On looking at the wiki I see that the 3.4 RFCs have some things that
didn't make it in to 3.4 and the 3.6 RFCs page is empty. We should
probably move the devs that didn't make it to 3.4 from this page:
http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Category:Koha_3.4_RFCs to a page
for 3.6
Hi All
Biblibre have done some good circulation improvements (bug 5872) but
this is currently blocked by bug 5436
http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=5436
Work is being done on Hourly loans
http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/showdependencytree.cgi?id=5549&hide_resolved=
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Chris Nighswonger <
cnighswon...@foundations.edu> wrote:
> standard. In the Koha community that standard has long been the code
>
base in the main repo. So every fork is by definition only as nearly
> "Koha" as it conforms to that standard. Thus, the larger the del
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Clay Fouts wrote:
> Each vendor has their own (sometimes very large) customizations that they
> may or may not port back into community code. The community RM may or may
> not accept these back ports even if effort is made to rebase them. Please
> point to the line
Hi Dobrica,
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Dobrica Pavlinusic wrote:
>> The scaling foo really follows no logic that I've be able to figure
>> out yet. It is definitely not a "one size fits all" situation. Right
>> now it is optimized for longer barcodes. Feel free to improve upon it
>> if you a
I did not say that Software Coop was paying for it. My whole point was that
they were *not* paying for it. I stated that someone was paying ByWater to
port it, and I now understand that that someone is ByWater itself, not a
customer. I stand corrected on that point.
Clay
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9
Clay -
Please get your facts straight before you continue with this thread and us
other companies names. Comment in-line.
On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:05 AM, Clay Fouts wrote:
> Each vendor has their own (sometimes very large) customizations that they may
> or may not port back into community code.
Each vendor has their own (sometimes very large) customizations that they
may or may not port back into community code. The community RM may or may
not accept these back ports even if effort is made to rebase them. Please
point to the line distinguishing "Koha" from "not Koha".
Is BibLibre's fork
Hie,
Z3950 search in Koha works well with the BFN server.
See french default installation :
http://git.koha-community.org/gitweb/?p=koha.git;a=blob;f=installer/data/mysql/fr-FR/2-Optionel/z3950_BNF.sql;h=cde873e1bb834ec2f1634e65d824ea483c818776;hb=HEAD
Regards,
2011/6/6 Marcel de Rooy
> Hi a
2011/6/6 Clay Fouts :
> We do not in general make an effort to coordinate our work with other code
> bases, nor attempt to port our code over to them. The source is however
> available for all to see. Upon release from the sponsoring customer, we
> publish the source code for anyone to work whichev
Why would anyone use it? I've given a link to the current release notes that
document the features that are unique to our fork. There are release notes
for previous version, as well. We don't develop features for the fun of it
(usually); we develop features that libraries want and that don't yet ex
We do not in general make an effort to coordinate our work with other code
bases, nor attempt to port our code over to them. The source is however
available for all to see. Upon release from the sponsoring customer, we
publish the source code for anyone to work whichever pieces they want into
whate
Op maandag 6 juni 2011 20:34:17 schreef MJ Ray:
> So let's document the current practice and make it easier? Changing
> the process, adding more steps and special bug cases seems wrong.
No it doesn't. (If you can claim something in that manner, so can I :)
> Delayed disclosure (the neutral name
Hi all,
I am testing some changes in z3950_search.pl and I am wondering if the default
Koha z3950 script correctly functions for unimarc targets (with marcflavor to
unimarc as well of course).
Could anyone of you using z3950 with unimarc reply on that?
Is the MARC and Card view on the results sc
Juste for information :
The demo form LibLime website provides the revision number in "About" module
:
*
Koha version: 3.01.00.039 with LibLime Enterprise Koha build: 4.061*
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:17 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
> Christian Calle Jahuira wrote:
> > Write to La Paz Bolivia, I have i
Dobrica Pavlinusic wrote:
> Curretly, they are split into several patches. Should I merge all the
> changes together before attaching it to related bug
> http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=6448
> or attach them one-by-one?
I think either is fine, but maybe the RMs have an opi
Robin Sheat wrote:
> Op vrijdag 3 juni 2011 22:03:50 schreef MJ Ray:
> > Please, no closed list for development discussions. If someone finds
> > a security vulnerability and has a support provider, they should
> > tell them. If they do not, contact the project release manager -
> > hopefully we
Christian Calle Jahuira wrote:
> Write to La Paz Bolivia, I have implemented KOHA version 3.0,
> my question is about the advantages of KOHA 4 and LibLime,
> which presents differences.
The latest version is Koha 3.4. There is no Koha 4 yet.
LibLime is trying to pass off their LMS as Koha, but it
18 matches
Mail list logo
