---- Reported by email@example.com 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 firstname.lastname@example.org 2010-01-25 15:55:10 ----
Created an attachment
---- Additional Comments From email@example.com 2010-02-24 16:48:53 ----
Patch was pushed to HEAD on 2010-01-26. Marking this one fixed.
--- Bug imported by firstname.lastname@example.org 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: email@example.com.
I found three other instances of this bug:
The fix for the last one is dependent on a fix for Bug 7158
Created attachment 6210 [details] [review]
Fixes for supplier.tt and claims.tt
Simple template only change, fixes language error according to existing standards. Marking as signed off and Passed QA all at once.
This patch is trivial, and is a follow-up of a patch that was not on a branch.
* I haven't created a branch for it, I've pushed directly onto master
* I mark it RESO / FIXED immediatly