Holds in Koha needs some work - full RFC here: http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Holds_Rewrite_RFC
Changing the importance of this enhancement to high because if it was in place, we'd have several California libraries choosing Koha. Instead they are moving to Evergreen (or at least thinking about it). But I actually think Koha is a better choice for these libraries in many ways ....but only if they have more control over how holds are handled. This is a big missing piece.
I agree with the sentiment, but changing the priority doesn't do anything at all. The development is sponsored and work is being done. Short of throwing more money at it I don't know what else can be done.
I have thrown money at it. If lack of money is the reason this development isn't getting done, I'd like to know about it.
Have you looked at all the attached bugs Lori, work is being done.
I would be inerested to hear what kind of problems they have? What are the missing pieces?
Thanks, Chris. I know that work is being done. I didn't mean to create trouble. Brendan said it would be fine for me to bump up the priority above the default setting so I was just wanting people to know that this is an important one for many of us here in California.
And if there are blockers that are going to prevent this enhancement from coming to fruition, I would like to know. We did make an investment in it and I'd like to see it continuing to move forward....I'm just not sure of the best way to keep track of its progress and help move it forward if there is indeed something I could do to help.
*** Bug 5438 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Currently, when a Suspended HOLD is un-suspended, it does not show up in the Holds to Pull report.
Is this part of the Holds re-write development?
If not, can it be?
It's kind of an important feature.
Are you referring to view_holdsqueue.pl, or to pendingreserves.pl?
(In reply to comment #8)
> Currently, when a Suspended HOLD is un-suspended, it does not show up in the
> Holds to Pull report.
> Is this part of the Holds re-write development?
> If not, can it be?
> It's kind of an important feature.
Confirmed with Kyle that this can be closed.