From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexis Subject: Re: Some thoughts on MobileOrg and its development .... Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 12:45:56 +1000 Message-ID: <87ha1hxfq1.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47701) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XHOh3-00064z-P7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 22:53:50 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XHOgu-0007YF-OU for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 22:53:41 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f]:38973) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XHOgu-0007Y9-FR for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 22:53:32 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id kx10so13882650pab.6 for ; Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:53:30 -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 sz4sm394911pbc.28.2014.08.12.19.53.29 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:53:30 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: <53eacc31.8649320a.5dd1.084d@mx.google.com> 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 Ashton Kemerling writes: > I can say for certain that we would have to figure out the handoff of > various credentials from the old maintainers (who I am assuming would > not like to continue being maintainers) for the respective app-stores > and Dropbox tokens. Not necessarily. One could, for example, create an entirely new project on GitHub called 'MobileOrgRebooted', and create entirely new apps in the respective stores using that name. (As it is, there's not a uniformly named app in any case - we have 'MobileOrg' for iOS, and 'MobileOrg-Android' for, well, Android.) And it certainly seems to me that it would be best to start the actual coding of the reboot /first/, and only worry about naming rights issues if and when it takes off. Doing otherwise is likely to bring into play another possible obstacle to getting actual implementation happening. Alexis.