On Thu 15 Apr, paul POULAIN wrote:
MJ Ray a écrit :
And while I am grumbling, I do think that Koha gives the impression in some respects of being amateurish and unfinished. (I know that one should not look a gift horse in the mouth but ...)
Well, it's a .0 release and I don't think we're any worse than most software I've had to deal with. Feel free to gaze and tell me just which teeth look rotten. The challenge for me is whether I can do well enough with the next releases to polish 2.0.x into something which seems better and learn things so that 2.2.0 is better. I'm just writing my "roadmap". Keywords: free software, accessable, interoperable, portable, usable, stable.
/me just want to add that Koha is something very complex : it needs technical habilities AND librarian habilities. It has to be a lot tweaked before showing it's power. The tweaking is mandatory : without it, you would think that it does not fit exactly your needs.
Well is it all that complicated? The main problem is the lack of documentation. I am a reasonable amateur perl programmer but i wouldn't have a clue where to start looking for any of the problems that I have found. Recently I was playing around with a totally different program (involving Court filing) and the writers had provided a program flow diagram which enabled me to modify, or tweak, the scripts in various ways. http://www.court-tech.org/incounter/documentation.php Roger -- Roger Horne, 11 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3QB mailto:roger@hrothgar.co.uk http://www.hrothgar.co.uk/