From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexis Subject: Re: Some thoughts on MobileOrg and its development .... Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:54:17 +1000 Message-ID: <87a977yiio.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87a97e1mp3.fsf@gmail.com> <8638d6wav8.fsf@gmail.com> <53eaba61.0315320a.67ec.ffffc1ed@mx.google.com> <53eacc31.8649320a.5dd1.084d@mx.google.com> <87ha1hxfq1.fsf@gmail.com> <878umsstbn.fsf@generowicz.net> <878umsuiz1.fsf@gnusosa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43345) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XHjiA-0002Di-P0 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:20:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XHji1-0005Ye-NH for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:20:14 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-x229.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c02::229]:40696) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XHji1-0005V0-FT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:20:05 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id y10so637354pdj.0 for ; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ppp118-209-47-36.lns20.mel4.internode.on.net. [118.209.47.36]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pu1sm3405799pbc.45.2014.08.13.18.20.02 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:20:03 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: <878umsuiz1.fsf@gnusosa.net> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Carlos Sosa writes: > There's a difference feature wise between MobileOrgNG[1] and > MobileOrg-Android[2], which I believe should be merged into one project. > For instance, I don't know of MobileOrgNG having a SSH synchronizer > which many people make use of, including me, but with that said, > MobileOrgNG has a far greater and friendlier interface. > > I would suggest merging both projects for the sake of a better user > experience. Well, again, the fundamental problem here is that none of these three MobileOrg* projects are being actively worked on / maintained. The last commit to MobileOrgNG was on 13 February last year (and is "149 commits ahead, 863 commits behind" MobileOrg-Android). And despite not-insignificant discussion here on the Org mailing list about the MobileOrg* projects over the last few months, none of the lead devs for any of these projects has chimed in, which suggests work on the Org ecosystem is a very low priority for them right now. So it seems to me that the likelihood of getting the two projects to work on a merge process is similarly very low. It's certainly true that someone could create a third Android-specific version of MobileOrg that combines what they feel to be the best of both Android apps. However, assuming that new app took off, we would still have two different implementations on two different platforms where fixes and improvements to code and documentation on one platform wouldn't be immediately useful and/or appropriate for the other platform. (Not to mention there'd still not be even theoretical support for platforms other than iOS and Android.) >From a purely selfish point of view, as an Android user, a new Android app combining MobileOrg-Android and MobileOrgNG would probably meet my needs in the short term. In the medium to long term, however, i'm not yet convinced that it would make the Org-on-mobile-devices situation much more sustainably active than it is now. Alexis.