Forum .LRN Q&A: Response to continuation of dotLRN Governance

Posted by Andrew Grumet on
Also, and maybe more importantly, is there any compelling reason why MIT couldn't use official code base? The code base would gain much more credibility that way. Andrew?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but perhaps my comments will shed some light. During the weeks and months leading up to the Sloanspace launch---and I believe this is still true---running dotLRN required us to be at the HEAD of the OpenACS tree. So there was no "official" code base to build on. My preference is to reach a point where we can say something like, "dotLRN 1.0 will run on OACS 4.6 or better". I have yet to clear this with others, but in Cambridge we've been talking about scheduling the release for a couple of weeks after the OACS release, so that we can adequately test dotLRN against 4.6.