Hello, May I ask why are there 2 different versions of "official" Koha? 3.4.1 and 3.2.9. Just curious why are u still working on 3.2, isn't it obsolete now that 3.4 is out?
I'm not part of the development team or anything but here's my explanation: not everyone is able to upgrade to the newer versions so the older versions remained supported for some period of time. So while there is no more development to 3.2, any bugs found will be fixed. At some point, even that will stop and everyone will be expected to get themselves upgraded. Lori =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lori Bowen Ayre // Library Technology Consultant The Galecia Group // www.galecia.com (707) 763-6869 // Lori.Ayre@galecia.com <Lori.Ayre@galecia.com>Specializing in open source ILS solutions, RFID, filtering, workflow optimization, and materials handling =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 2011/6/3 Muhammad Abdullah <mamfab@gmail.com>
Hello,
May I ask why are there 2 different versions of "official" Koha? 3.4.1 and 3.2.9. Just curious why are u still working on 3.2, isn't it obsolete now that 3.4 is out?
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
So while there is no more development to 3.2, any bugs found will be fixed. At some point, even that will stop and everyone will be expected to get themselves upgraded.
And indeed, the 3.2.x Release Maintainer has said that the upcoming 3.2.10 release will most likely be the final release of the 3.2.x branch. -- Owen -- Web Developer Athens County Public Libraries http://www.myacpl.org
At 01:00 PM 6/3/2011 -0400, Owen Leonard wrote:
So while there is no more development to 3.2, any bugs found will be fixed. At some point, even that will stop and everyone will be expected to get themselves upgraded.
And indeed, the 3.2.x Release Maintainer has said that the upcoming 3.2.10 release will most likely be the final release of the 3.2.x branch.
"expected to get themselves upgraded" ... or, of course, to retain 3.2.x in production. We have a functional, extensively customized, 3.2.5 that meets the requirements of our cataloguers and users. While I might spend some of my spare [?] time looking at 3.4 (I really like the concept of templates), the customization has to be done all over again, and is proving troublesome. Nothing wrong with Koha, all to do with our requirements; I ended up modifying the SQL structure to accept longer, searchable keywords and abstracts; to facilitate serials cataloguing; and to remove all "lending library" features to speed things up considerably (we are reference/research only.) If and when I get 3.4 running to our requirements, we'll evaluate whether we migrate; but in the meanwhile, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And I'm sure there's got to be a lot of other Koha users who are also wary of "upgrading" a fully functional tool. This is the great strength of community-driven, open license products - you can reach a point where you have achieved what you set out to do. Anything after that can be considered much lower priority. Quite frankly, my only concern at this point is to get rid of Zebra and integrate different search methodology which is apparently not high on the Koha horizon; barcoded spine labels, dustjacket images and emailed fines are not in our specifications. Everyone achieving their own specs, again, is a Koha strength. Otherwise we'll end up following the "M$ business code" - if Win98 is good enough for a Koha kiosk (and it most certainly is) you don't need to go chasing Vista, Win7 or Win8. Our Ubuntu 10.10 server is perfect for Koha, so I only look for the ultra-rare Ubuntu security alerts. Given our satisfaction with Koha, I'll definitely be keeping an eye on future versions; but in the meanwhile, I respectfully beg to differ with the statement that "everyone will be expected to get themselves upgraded." Regards - Paul Tired old sys-admin. --- Archives and Collections (ACS) Society 205, Main Street, Picton, Ontario, K0K 2T0, Canada http://www.AandC.org Canadian Charitable Organization 88721 9921 RR0001 Dedicated to maritime conservation and education.
Thanks Paul! I appreciate getting my wrong assumptions straightened out. Very good points about that being another value of being on an open source product. Lori =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lori Bowen Ayre // Library Technology Consultant The Galecia Group // www.galecia.com (707) 763-6869 // Lori.Ayre@galecia.com <Lori.Ayre@galecia.com>Specializing in open source ILS solutions, RFID, filtering, workflow optimization, and materials handling =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Paul <paul.a@aandc.org> wrote:
So while there is no more development to 3.2, any bugs found will be fixed. At some point, even
At 01:00 PM 6/3/2011 -0400, Owen Leonard wrote: that
will stop and everyone will be expected to get themselves upgraded.
And indeed, the 3.2.x Release Maintainer has said that the upcoming 3.2.10 release will most likely be the final release of the 3.2.x branch.
"expected to get themselves upgraded" ... or, of course, to retain 3.2.x in production.
We have a functional, extensively customized, 3.2.5 that meets the requirements of our cataloguers and users. While I might spend some of my spare [?] time looking at 3.4 (I really like the concept of templates), the customization has to be done all over again, and is proving troublesome. Nothing wrong with Koha, all to do with our requirements; I ended up modifying the SQL structure to accept longer, searchable keywords and abstracts; to facilitate serials cataloguing; and to remove all "lending library" features to speed things up considerably (we are reference/research only.)
If and when I get 3.4 running to our requirements, we'll evaluate whether we migrate; but in the meanwhile, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And I'm sure there's got to be a lot of other Koha users who are also wary of "upgrading" a fully functional tool.
This is the great strength of community-driven, open license products - you can reach a point where you have achieved what you set out to do. Anything after that can be considered much lower priority. Quite frankly, my only concern at this point is to get rid of Zebra and integrate different search methodology which is apparently not high on the Koha horizon; barcoded spine labels, dustjacket images and emailed fines are not in our specifications.
Everyone achieving their own specs, again, is a Koha strength. Otherwise we'll end up following the "M$ business code" - if Win98 is good enough for a Koha kiosk (and it most certainly is) you don't need to go chasing Vista, Win7 or Win8. Our Ubuntu 10.10 server is perfect for Koha, so I only look for the ultra-rare Ubuntu security alerts.
Given our satisfaction with Koha, I'll definitely be keeping an eye on future versions; but in the meanwhile, I respectfully beg to differ with the statement that "everyone will be expected to get themselves upgraded."
Regards - Paul Tired old sys-admin.
--- Archives and Collections (ACS) Society 205, Main Street, Picton, Ontario, K0K 2T0, Canada http://www.AandC.org Canadian Charitable Organization 88721 9921 RR0001 Dedicated to maritime conservation and education.
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
A wee word of caution from someone who has been badly stung and never want to be again ... Horowhenua stayed on Koha 1.x for years and years and years because it was perfect for our needs and we didn't see any value in sifting to 2.x . This was largely because the introduction of Marc broke our FRBR system but also because our acquisitions module worked beautifully and error free. Slowly it dawned on us that we were on an abandoned fork. The main project had raced on and got better and better. When we did make the jump to 2.x it was hideous - everything was "broken" in our eyes. Shifting to 3.2 was another big jump; again we had left it too long and did not stay current. So from now on this is my vow :) I intend to always upgrade to the current stable version, limit customizations to an absolute minimum, and when I do commission enhancements I also fund for that work to be incorporated into the main trunk (and yes it doubles the cost but I want to be certain I am always swimming in the main Koha stream). Cheers Jo. 2011/6/4 Lori Bowen Ayre <lori.ayre@galecia.com>
Thanks Paul! I appreciate getting my wrong assumptions straightened out. Very good points about that being another value of being on an open source product.
Lori
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lori Bowen Ayre // Library Technology Consultant The Galecia Group // www.galecia.com (707) 763-6869 // Lori.Ayre@galecia.com
<Lori.Ayre@galecia.com>Specializing in open source ILS solutions, RFID, filtering, workflow optimization, and materials handling =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Paul <paul.a@aandc.org> wrote:
So while there is no more development to 3.2, any bugs found will be fixed. At some point, even
At 01:00 PM 6/3/2011 -0400, Owen Leonard wrote: that
will stop and everyone will be expected to get themselves upgraded.
And indeed, the 3.2.x Release Maintainer has said that the upcoming 3.2.10 release will most likely be the final release of the 3.2.x branch.
"expected to get themselves upgraded" ... or, of course, to retain 3.2.x in production.
We have a functional, extensively customized, 3.2.5 that meets the requirements of our cataloguers and users. While I might spend some of my spare [?] time looking at 3.4 (I really like the concept of templates), the customization has to be done all over again, and is proving troublesome. Nothing wrong with Koha, all to do with our requirements; I ended up modifying the SQL structure to accept longer, searchable keywords and abstracts; to facilitate serials cataloguing; and to remove all "lending library" features to speed things up considerably (we are reference/research only.)
If and when I get 3.4 running to our requirements, we'll evaluate whether we migrate; but in the meanwhile, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And I'm sure there's got to be a lot of other Koha users who are also wary of "upgrading" a fully functional tool.
This is the great strength of community-driven, open license products - you can reach a point where you have achieved what you set out to do. Anything after that can be considered much lower priority. Quite frankly, my only concern at this point is to get rid of Zebra and integrate different search methodology which is apparently not high on the Koha horizon; barcoded spine labels, dustjacket images and emailed fines are not in our specifications.
Everyone achieving their own specs, again, is a Koha strength. Otherwise we'll end up following the "M$ business code" - if Win98 is good enough for a Koha kiosk (and it most certainly is) you don't need to go chasing Vista, Win7 or Win8. Our Ubuntu 10.10 server is perfect for Koha, so I only look for the ultra-rare Ubuntu security alerts.
Given our satisfaction with Koha, I'll definitely be keeping an eye on future versions; but in the meanwhile, I respectfully beg to differ with the statement that "everyone will be expected to get themselves upgraded."
Regards - Paul Tired old sys-admin.
--- Archives and Collections (ACS) Society 205, Main Street, Picton, Ontario, K0K 2T0, Canada http://www.AandC.org Canadian Charitable Organization 88721 9921 RR0001 Dedicated to maritime conservation and education.
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
-- Joann Ransom RLIANZA Head of Libraries, Horowhenua Library Trust.
At 10:52 AM 6/4/2011 +1200, Joann Ransom wrote:
A wee word of caution from someone who has been badly stung and never want to be again ... Horowhenua stayed on Koha 1.x for years and years and years because it was perfect for our needs and we didn't see any value in sifting to 2.x . This was largely because the introduction of Marc broke our FRBR system but also because our acquisitions module worked beautifully and error free.
Joann, Thanks for the reply. Might I suggest that your "word of caution" reflects the point that I was making. You write: "didn't see any value in shifting" ... "worked beautifully." My terminology was "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Slowly it dawned on us that we were on an abandoned fork. The main project had raced on and got better and better.
If, as you write 'abandoned' = 'beautiful'|'perfect for our needs', then did 'better and better' = new features that were part of your requirements? [and I'm not sure what an 'abandoned fork' really means; whether you simply add logos and change layout schemes in CSS, or modify MySQL structure and delete perl modules, every customization is a 'fork' that is not followed by the community at large. We probably all do it without feeling abandoned.]
When we did make the jump to 2.x it was hideous - everything was "broken" in our eyes. Shifting to 3.2 was another big jump; again we had left it too long and did not stay current.
Were you in a production environment? 'Hideous' and 'broken' are anathema to me (but my IT training and experience for a quarter of a century from the late 1950s was in national defense) and since then I have always attempted to programme to [end] users needs. I think you're saying that 'stay current' was the cause of your dilemma - a possibility that I wish to avoid.
So from now on this is my vow :) I intend to always upgrade to the current stable version, limit customizations to an absolute minimum, and when I do commission enhancements I also fund for that work to be incorporated into the main trunk (and yes it doubles the cost but I want to be certain I am always swimming in the main Koha stream).
I take my hat off to you (and to those who can double your budget), but would suggest that while swimming in the main stream is ideologically perfect, some of us may be constrained to more pragmatic surroundings. The charity that I work for looked for a low [to reasonable internal] cost solution to its needs. We have succeeded *thanks_to_Koha* and consider additional bells and whistles to be a low priority luxury. Your [and others'] mileage might well vary. In peace, friendship and respect, Paul Tired old sys-admin.
Cheers Jo.
2011/6/4 Lori Bowen Ayre <<mailto:lori.ayre@galecia.com>lori.ayre@galecia.com> Thanks Paul! I appreciate getting my wrong assumptions straightened out. Very good points about that being another value of being on an open source product.
Lori
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lori Bowen Ayre // Library Technology Consultant The Galecia Group // <http://www.galecia.com/>www.galecia.com (707) 763-6869 // <mailto:Lori.Ayre@galecia.com>Lori.Ayre@galecia.com
Specializing in open source ILS solutions, RFID, filtering, workflow optimization, and materials handling =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Paul <<mailto:paul.a@aandc.org>paul.a@aandc.org> wrote: At 01:00 PM 6/3/2011 -0400, Owen Leonard wrote:
So while there is no more development to 3.2, any bugs found will be fixed. At some point, even that will stop and everyone will be expected to get themselves upgraded.
And indeed, the 3.2.x Release Maintainer has said that the upcoming 3.2.10 release will most likely be the final release of the 3.2.x branch.
"expected to get themselves upgraded" ... or, of course, to retain 3.2.x in production.
We have a functional, extensively customized, 3.2.5 that meets the requirements of our cataloguers and users. While I might spend some of my spare [?] time looking at 3.4 (I really like the concept of templates), the customization has to be done all over again, and is proving troublesome. Nothing wrong with Koha, all to do with our requirements; I ended up modifying the SQL structure to accept longer, searchable keywords and abstracts; to facilitate serials cataloguing; and to remove all "lending library" features to speed things up considerably (we are reference/research only.)
If and when I get 3.4 running to our requirements, we'll evaluate whether we migrate; but in the meanwhile, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And I'm sure there's got to be a lot of other Koha users who are also wary of "upgrading" a fully functional tool.
This is the great strength of community-driven, open license products - you can reach a point where you have achieved what you set out to do. Anything after that can be considered much lower priority. Quite frankly, my only concern at this point is to get rid of Zebra and integrate different search methodology which is apparently not high on the Koha horizon; barcoded spine labels, dustjacket images and emailed fines are not in our specifications.
Everyone achieving their own specs, again, is a Koha strength. Otherwise we'll end up following the "M$ business code" - if Win98 is good enough for a Koha kiosk (and it most certainly is) you don't need to go chasing Vista, Win7 or Win8. Our Ubuntu 10.10 server is perfect for Koha, so I only look for the ultra-rare Ubuntu security alerts.
Given our satisfaction with Koha, I'll definitely be keeping an eye on future versions; but in the meanwhile, I respectfully beg to differ with the statement that "everyone will be expected to get themselves upgraded."
Regards - Paul Tired old sys-admin.
--- Archives and Collections (ACS) Society 205, Main Street, Picton, Ontario, K0K 2T0, Canada <http://www.AandC.org>http://www.AandC.org Canadian Charitable Organization 88721 9921 RR0001 Dedicated to maritime conservation and education.
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list <http://koha-community.org>http://koha-community.org <mailto:Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz>Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz <http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha>http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list <http://koha-community.org>http://koha-community.org <mailto:Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz>Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz <http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha>http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
-- Joann Ransom RLIANZA Head of Libraries, Horowhenua Library Trust.
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Hi Paul, I love the way different points of view can be aired in Koha Community - useful discussion.. Yours in mutual peace, friendship and respect :) Jo. On 4 June 2011 12:38, Paul <paul.a@aandc.org> wrote:
At 10:52 AM 6/4/2011 +1200, Joann Ransom wrote:
A wee word of caution from someone who has been badly stung and never want to be again ... Horowhenua stayed on Koha 1.x for years and years and years because it was perfect for our needs and we didn't see any value in sifting to 2.x . This was largely because the introduction of Marc broke our FRBR system but also because our acquisitions module worked beautifully and error free.
Joann,
Thanks for the reply. Might I suggest that your "word of caution" reflects the point that I was making. You write: "didn't see any value in shifting" ... "worked beautifully." My terminology was "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Slowly it dawned on us that we were on an abandoned fork. The main
project had raced on and got better and better.
If, as you write 'abandoned' = 'beautiful'|'perfect for our needs', then did 'better and better' = new features that were part of your requirements? [and I'm not sure what an 'abandoned fork' really means; whether you simply add logos and change layout schemes in CSS, or modify MySQL structure and delete perl modules, every customization is a 'fork' that is not followed by the community at large. We probably all do it without feeling abandoned.]
When we did make the jump to 2.x it was hideous - everything was "broken" in our eyes. Shifting to 3.2 was another big jump; again we had left it too long and did not stay current.
Were you in a production environment? 'Hideous' and 'broken' are anathema to me (but my IT training and experience for a quarter of a century from the late 1950s was in national defense) and since then I have always attempted to programme to [end] users needs. I think you're saying that 'stay current' was the cause of your dilemma - a possibility that I wish to avoid.
So from now on this is my vow :) I intend to always upgrade to the current stable version, limit customizations to an absolute minimum, and when I do commission enhancements I also fund for that work to be incorporated into the main trunk (and yes it doubles the cost but I want to be certain I am always swimming in the main Koha stream).
I take my hat off to you (and to those who can double your budget), but would suggest that while swimming in the main stream is ideologically perfect, some of us may be constrained to more pragmatic surroundings. The charity that I work for looked for a low [to reasonable internal] cost solution to its needs. We have succeeded *thanks_to_Koha* and consider additional bells and whistles to be a low priority luxury. Your [and others'] mileage might well vary.
In peace, friendship and respect, Paul Tired old sys-admin.
Cheers Jo.
2011/6/4 Lori Bowen Ayre <<mailto:lori.ayre@galecia.com> lori.ayre@galecia.com> Thanks Paul! I appreciate getting my wrong assumptions straightened out. Very good points about that being another value of being on an open source product.
Lori
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lori Bowen Ayre // Library Technology Consultant The Galecia Group // <http://www.galecia.com/>www.galecia.com (707) 763-6869 // <mailto:Lori.Ayre@galecia.com>Lori.Ayre@galecia.com
Specializing in open source ILS solutions, RFID, filtering, workflow optimization, and materials handling =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Paul <<mailto:paul.a@aandc.org>paul.a@aandc.org> wrote: At 01:00 PM 6/3/2011 -0400, Owen Leonard wrote:
So while there is no more development to 3.2, any bugs found will be fixed. At some point, even that will stop and everyone will be expected to get themselves upgraded.
And indeed, the 3.2.x Release Maintainer has said that the upcoming 3.2.10 release will most likely be the final release of the 3.2.x branch.
"expected to get themselves upgraded" ... or, of course, to retain 3.2.x in production.
We have a functional, extensively customized, 3.2.5 that meets the requirements of our cataloguers and users. While I might spend some of my spare [?] time looking at 3.4 (I really like the concept of templates), the customization has to be done all over again, and is proving troublesome. Nothing wrong with Koha, all to do with our requirements; I ended up modifying the SQL structure to accept longer, searchable keywords and abstracts; to facilitate serials cataloguing; and to remove all "lending library" features to speed things up considerably (we are reference/research only.)
If and when I get 3.4 running to our requirements, we'll evaluate whether we migrate; but in the meanwhile, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And I'm sure there's got to be a lot of other Koha users who are also wary of "upgrading" a fully functional tool.
This is the great strength of community-driven, open license products - you can reach a point where you have achieved what you set out to do. Anything after that can be considered much lower priority. Quite frankly, my only concern at this point is to get rid of Zebra and integrate different search methodology which is apparently not high on the Koha horizon; barcoded spine labels, dustjacket images and emailed fines are not in our specifications.
Everyone achieving their own specs, again, is a Koha strength. Otherwise we'll end up following the "M$ business code" - if Win98 is good enough for a Koha kiosk (and it most certainly is) you don't need to go chasing Vista, Win7 or Win8. Our Ubuntu 10.10 server is perfect for Koha, so I only look for the ultra-rare Ubuntu security alerts.
Given our satisfaction with Koha, I'll definitely be keeping an eye on future versions; but in the meanwhile, I respectfully beg to differ with the statement that "everyone will be expected to get themselves upgraded."
Regards - Paul Tired old sys-admin.
--- Archives and Collections (ACS) Society 205, Main Street, Picton, Ontario, K0K 2T0, Canada <http://www.AandC.org>http://www.AandC.org Canadian Charitable Organization 88721 9921 RR0001 Dedicated to maritime conservation and education.
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list <http://koha-community.org>http://koha-community.org <mailto:Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz>Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz <http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list <http://koha-community.org>http://koha-community.org <mailto:Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz>Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz <http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
-- Joann Ransom RLIANZA Head of Libraries, Horowhenua Library Trust.
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
-- Joann Ransom RLIANZA Head of Libraries, Horowhenua Library Trust.
Paul wrote:
Everyone achieving their own specs, again, is a Koha strength. Otherwise we'll end up following the "M$ business code" - if Win98 is good enough for a Koha kiosk (and it most certainly is) you don't need to go chasing Vista, Win7 or Win8. Our Ubuntu 10.10 server is perfect for Koha, so I only look for the ultra-rare Ubuntu security alerts.
Given our satisfaction with Koha, I'll definitely be keeping an eye on future versions; but in the meanwhile, I respectfully beg to differ with the statement that "everyone will be expected to get themselves upgraded."
It would be good if people using no-longer-community-supported versions in production would note some contact details on http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Koha_Users_Worldwide or http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Koha_users_groups so that they could group together if a new 2.2 or 3.0 release is needed to solve some critical bug. Some of the co-op's client libraries tend to be slow updaters. At least one put things like "one upgrade a year" in their first contract - I think they were burned by a past system provider. But there comes a point where, like with Ubuntu, the security updates stop coming but the security problems still affect you. Then you have to choose whether to maintain it yourself and effectively build your own release management and security infrastructure, monitoring news from the latest versions in case it implies work that you should do, or whether to upgrade and rejoin the main community versions. If someone paid us enough, we'd probably support them on an old version, but the cost would get high eventually. In general, we suggest people keep to one or other of the stable versions because usually, cooperation is good for everyone. The other thing I'd suggest is if one customises Koha, try to do it in a sustainable way. Things like git help a lot, although the 3.4 template changes are often a bigger step than it handles neatly. Even if the customisations were developed outside git, it shouldn't be too hard for a 3.2.5 library to move to git and upgrade to 3.2.9. Basically, checkout 3.2.5 from git, branch it, apply your changes, commit it, then merge 3.2.9 onto it and resolve any conflicts. Hope that informs, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and LMS developer, statistician. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha
Le 03/06/2011 21:06, Paul a écrit :
Quite frankly, my only concern at this point is to get rid of Zebra and integrate different search methodology which is apparently not high on the Koha horizon; Hi Paul, here is Paul ;-)
This is high on BibLibre list, definetly ! we are convinced that switching to a new search engine like solR is a must. And we've 2 libraries that have sponsored this work. That won't be in 3.6 (I think), but I think it should/must be in a 4.0 version (reminder : we switched from v1 to v2 then v3 when a major structural change has been done (v1-> v2 = MARC support, v2-> v3 = zebra search engine). We started a thread about this switch to explain the limits we see with zebra, have organised meetings, some ppl have tested what we did (thx thomas ;-) ), we will probably speak about that on koha-devel in some weeks (during/after summer ?) HTH -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
On 7 June 2011 09:10, Paul Poulain <paul.poulain@biblibre.com> wrote:
Le 03/06/2011 21:06, Paul a écrit :
Quite frankly, my only concern at this point is to get rid of Zebra and integrate different search methodology which is apparently not high on the Koha horizon; Hi Paul, here is Paul ;-)
This is high on BibLibre list, definetly ! we are convinced that switching to a new search engine like solR is a must. And we've 2 libraries that have sponsored this work. That won't be in 3.6 (I think), but I think it should/must be in a 4.0 version (reminder : we switched from v1 to v2 then v3 when a major structural change has been done (v1-> v2 = MARC support, v2-> v3 = zebra search engine). We started a thread about this switch to explain the limits we see with zebra, have organised meetings, some ppl have tested what we did (thx thomas ;-) ), we will probably speak about that on koha-devel in some weeks (during/after summer ?)
I concur, supporting other fulltext search engines is definitely for Koha, im still hoping for 3.6 .. but Paul might be right it might need to wait for 4.0. But definitely keep an eye out on koha-devel. The only contention is how to achieve it, not whether to achieve it :) Chris
participants (8)
-
Chris Cormack -
Joann Ransom -
Lori Bowen Ayre -
MJ Ray -
Muhammad Abdullah -
Owen Leonard -
Paul -
Paul Poulain