Comments on: A quick look at some possible changes in 3.2

By: Joe Atzberger

Joe Atzberger — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 02:06:44 +0000

> the above article seemed to say it was 3 October.

It refers to “the end of next week” having been “posted on Friday, October 3rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm”. It should be pretty clear that doesn’t mean “today”.

> less than a month is a pretty short time to upgrade enough of our
> largest libraries to 3.0 and gather their input to 3.2.

Then gather their input for next version or refer them to the RFCs directly.

By: MJ Ray

MJ Ray — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:57:10 +0000

I thought it was 10 October! That’s why I was surprised that the above article seemed to say it was 3 October.

Even so, less than a month is a pretty short time to upgrade enough of our largest libraries to 3.0 and gather their input to 3.2.

By: Galen Charlton

Galen Charlton — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:09:48 +0000

The date of 10 October was proposed without disagreement during the community meeting on 12 September, mentioned again in the summary I sent to the mailing lists the same day, and noted in the post about the community meeting that Josh made on 16 September. Nearly a month's notice is more than sufficient to at least glance at the RFCs.

By: MJ Ray

MJ Ray — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 07:49:00 +0000

You post on a Friday that the RFCs need looking over by the end of the week? I didn’t even see the post until Monday morning! We’re still busy upgrading our Koha libraries to 3.0 - way to exclude them from 3.2 direction.