DSpace Bot

tdonohue said: +1 to Mark W's notes. I don't like the idea of different permissions per UI/interface, as it seems like an unnecessary complication (and I'm unaware of any real-life...

mdiggory said: The architecture dialog summary aside...I agree that it should be enforced in the API. This generally points to a problem in the "Private" status. Which was leveraged as...

pbecker said: As we talked about this ticket today in #dspace, I want to quote a summery by tdonohue: The general discussion in that ticket (and as far as I...

terrywbrady said: I noticed this discussion, and I wanted to add a comment. We make use of the old style embargo system. We present a submitter with a standard set...

terrywbrady said: Perhaps we should re-brand the remaining legacy embargo process as "named embargo policies".

tdonohue said: FWIW, based on discussion with Terrence W Brady, I'm starting to agree and wonder if this is more of a documentation/marketing/cleanup issue.  I think legacy embargoes already get...

tdonohue said: Thinking more on this, I'd recommend the following: (COMPLETED) Simplify the Embargo Documentation (https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSDOC6x/Embargo) to make it clear we really only have one type of embargo, but we...

terrywbrady said: The following thread may be useful.   https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/dspace-devel/NRBmSfVMPFs

Is related to: DS-2862

Successfully created backport PR for `dspace-7_x`: - #10147