Warning: Reply-To set to koha-devel.
"Andrew Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess it should be optional. Good point. If it's an optional
> dependency, how should I indicate that? Should I leave it out of
> Makefile.PL altogether?
I know no good way to indicate optional modules in Makefile.
Warning: Reply-To set to koha-devel.
"Joshua Ferraro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 1:16 PM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why are new features still going in? I'm snowed by all these
> > additions [...]
> This was announced on Jun 13 as something Andrew was working
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:18 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know no good way to indicate optional modules in Makefile.PL.
> Three choices that I think are better than total omission:-
> 3. switch on META.yml generation and add a recommends line
> http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META
Hi MJ -
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:18 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Why does this patch covertly reindent everything?
>>
>> I didn't intend for it to be covert. [...]
>
> OK. Please try to mention these things in comments. It'd be a bit of
> a pain to cherry-pick a patch described as
Hi folks,
Another quick update -- all of the translations except one have been
validated (and
I'll ping the translator for that translation to see if the team can
fix some problems with
it). I've updated http://translate.koha.org ... and now can officially
declare a string
freeze for 3.0. This mea
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:18 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Warning: Reply-To set to koha-devel.
>
> "Andrew Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I guess it should be optional. Good point. If it's an optional
>> dependency, how should I indicate that? Should I leave it out of
>> Makefile.P
Hi folks,
I'm happy to announce that a packaged RC1 release of Koha 3 is now
available. You can download from the usual location:
http://download.koha.org/koha-3.00.00-stableRC1.tar.gz
http://download.koha.org/koha-3.00.00-stableRC1.tar.gz.sig
You can check the integrity of the package; either b
"Joshua Ferraro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:18 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. put it in as a comment and POD string;
[...]
> > Which do people prefer? I'd lean towards doing (1 or 2) and 3.
> I prefer that all potential dependencies be clearly stated in th
Hi,
As noted in bug 2171
(http://bugs.koha.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2171), the
transfers to-do report is not working. The intention of the report
seems to be:
* get a list of hold requests grouped by branches; specifically, those
that already have a specific item associated with them
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:10 PM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Requiring modules that we're not actually going to use is also a bug
> in Koha.
I think that misconstrues the situation somewhat. We don't know what the
end user is going to use. We have certain requirements to provide certai
"Joe Atzberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:10 PM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Requiring modules that we're not actually going to use is also a bug
> > in Koha.
>
> I think that misconstrues the situation somewhat. We don't know what the
> end user is going to
Joshua Ferraro a écrit :
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:18 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Warning: Reply-To set to koha-devel.
>>
>> "Andrew Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess it should be optional. Good point. If it's an optional
>>> dependency, how should I indicate
Hi Henri -
thanks for your input on this.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Henri-Damien LAURENT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For instance, I have been said that SMS::Send even if not used or not
> desired would be required just becaus it was loaded in some core
> modules. If not, then error 500 w
13 matches
Mail list logo
