[I-mobile-u] Harvard code release

[Justin Anderson]

Yes, MIT would prefer to remain the canonical framework. Our goal is to build the MIT Mobile Framework into something any school can use with ease.

We are eager to review and accept any patches you may have. MIT is very interested in Modo's templating work (/future) and intends to incorporate that once it is further along. We also plan to incorporate even the parts of the Harvard code which MIT does not itself use, such as TransLoc and FoodPro support, because other users of the framework may find them useful.

Justin

On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:55 AM, David Ormsbee wrote:

Hi folks,

I'm sorry to add more confusion to the situation. Let me start by saying that Harvard's /future code is not ready for immediate adoption. It's still a work in progress, the structure might shift around, and we've only just started doing QA work on it. I wanted to let people know it existed to add to the general discussion on where we all want this framework to go. I also wanted to do the development out in the open and show everyone exactly what our folks have been hard at work on.

Modo still considers the MIT repo to be the canonical one, and we hope to get our changes merged back upstream when it's stable. There are a few features that exist in the stable Harvard repo (not /future) that aren't present in the MIT version -- cross-module search, dining (using a CSV export from FoodPro), and TransLoc support for shuttles. If those are of interest, you may want to fork Harvard. Otherwise, I encourage people to fork MIT as a general rule.

Thank you.

Dave

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Dave Olsen <dmolsen at gmail.com<mailto:dmolsen at gmail.com>> wrote:
I had the same question. Is there a canonical version of the framework? It's sort of bad enough that I've already gone off on a fork (and I'm well aware that's annoying) but seeing what could be four versions a user could now choose from... Just curious if there's a preference going forward among the options released last week.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:02 AM, Derek Morr <derekmorr at psu.edu<mailto:derekmorr at psu.edu>> wrote:

> Thank, David.
>
> We're still running the WVU 0.9 fork, but are looking to upgrade. Would
> you recommend deploying the 2.2.7 branch, or the Harvard branch? Is
> there a list of differences between the 2.2.7 and Harvard branches? If
> want to send patches, should we generate the diffs against 2.2.7,
> Harvard, or the /future tree in the Harvard branch?
>
> -derek
>
> --
> Derek Morr
> Senior Systems Programmer
> Emerging Technologies, Information Technology Services
> The Pennsylvania State University
> derekmorr at psu.edu<mailto:derekmorr at psu.edu>
>
> This email was sent (at least in part) over IPv6.
> _______________________________________________
> I-mobile-u mailing list
> I-mobile-u at mit.edu<mailto:I-mobile-u at mit.edu>
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/i-mobile-u


_______________________________________________
I-mobile-u mailing list
I-mobile-u at mit.edu<mailto:I-mobile-u at mit.edu>
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/i-mobile-u

<ATT00001..c>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/i-mobile-u/attachments/20101026/89edc557/attachment.htm