Bug 3958 - Standardize vendor/supplier/bookseller terminology
Summary: Standardize vendor/supplier/bookseller terminology
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Acquisitions (show other bugs)
Version: master
Hardware: All All
: PATCH-Sent (DO NOT USE) normal (vote)
Assignee: Owen Leonard
QA Contact: Bugs List
Depends on: 7158
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2009-12-18 03:31 UTC by Owen Leonard
Modified: 2012-10-25 23:09 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: ---
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:

Proposed fix (17.38 KB, patch)
2010-01-25 15:55 UTC, Chris Cormack
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Follow-up fix (2.08 KB, patch)
2011-11-04 19:01 UTC, Owen Leonard
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Chris Cormack 2010-05-21 01:21:28 UTC

---- Reported by oleonard@myacpl.org 2009-12-18 15:31:24 ----

Acquisitions pages use various terms to refer to the same thing: vendor, supplier, and bookseller. A single term should be chosen and used throughout. I'm going to go with "vendor" unless I hear otherwise.

[10:24]	<kf>	vendor sounds better for me, but Im not a native speaker :)
[10:25]	<nengard>	I've done a lot of training
[10:25]	<nengard>	and no one has ever used a term other than vendor when i asked how they did acq
[10:25]	<nengard>	but that is just the US

---- Additional Comments From oleonard@myacpl.org 2010-01-25 15:55:10 ----

Created an attachment
Proposed fix

---- Additional Comments From oleonard@myacpl.org 2010-02-24 16:48:53 ----

Patch was pushed to HEAD on 2010-01-26. Marking this one fixed.

--- Bug imported by chris@bigballofwax.co.nz 2010-05-21 01:21 UTC  ---

This bug was previously known as _bug_ 3958 at http://bugs.koha.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=3958
Imported an attachment (id=1715)

Actual time not defined. Setting to 0.0
Setting qa contact to the default for this product.
   This bug either had no qa contact or an invalid one.
The original submitter of attachment 1715 [details] [review] is unknown.
   Reassigning to the person who moved it here: chris@bigballofwax.co.nz.

Comment 1 Owen Leonard 2011-11-04 18:56:44 UTC
I found three other instances of this bug:


The fix for the last one is dependent on a fix for Bug 7158
Comment 2 Owen Leonard 2011-11-04 19:01:24 UTC
Created attachment 6210 [details] [review]
Follow-up fix

Fixes for supplier.tt and claims.tt
Comment 3 Ian Walls 2011-11-05 03:33:50 UTC
Simple template only change, fixes language error according to existing standards.  Marking as signed off and Passed QA all at once.
Comment 4 Paul Poulain 2011-11-05 03:57:08 UTC
Patch pushed.

This patch is trivial, and is a follow-up of a patch that was not on a branch.
So :
* I haven't created a branch for it, I've pushed directly onto master
* I mark it RESO / FIXED immediatly