DSpace Bot

helix84 said: I disagree that the 1.6 embargo should be removed. While I welcomed the addition of 3.0 embargo as a much needed simplification for the most common use case,...

mwood said: Could "new" embargo be seen as a special case of "old" embargo? That is: DSpace comes with date-based embargo, but you can provide other types. Viewed in that...

helix84 said: While date-based embargo could be implemented in 1.6 and it seems it was indeed the most common use-case, I don't see how you could extend the resourcepolicy-based 3.0...

mwood said: I don't want to generalize the 3.0 dated-embargo to encompass other use cases; I want to use the 3.0 code to replace the old dated-embargo implementation. Where a...

tdonohue said: Ivan, can you better describe the use cases of the 1.6 Embargo system which are not achievable (yet) in the newer 3.0 Embargo system? It seems like, given...

mwood said: It would perhaps make sense to have two different sets of embargo code if they did different jobs. But the don't; they do the same job with different...

pbecker said: I'm currently working on DS-2358 and thought about writing a ticket like this one. I can see Ivan's point. Nevertheless we should look for a way to harmonize...

helix84 said: Sorry, I forgot to answer. Pascal-Nicolas Becker correctly described the use case you can do with 1.6 but can't do with 3.0 embargo. Thinking about this some more,...

mdiggory said: Ivan, Mark and Pascal, I would like to take a moment to describe the forms of embargo that are supported (and possibly another that I have seen discussed...

mwood said: I'm not sure that we need to have per-UI policies. How much more machinery do we need? PMH doesn't have an authentication mechanism, so all PMH sessions are...