[I-mobile-u] Harvard code release

[Dave Olsen]

thanks for the clarification, guys.

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Justin Anderson <jander at mit.edu> wrote:
> 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> 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> 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
>> >
>> > This email was sent (at least in part) over IPv6.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > I-mobile-u mailing list
>> > 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
>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/i-mobile-u
>
> <ATT00001..c>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-mobile-u mailing list
> I-mobile-u at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/i-mobile-u
>
>



-- 

Proud supporter of DC United