24 Jun
2009
24 Jun
'09
5:04 p.m.
On 06/24/2009 10:31 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
El Miércoles, 24 de Junio de 2009, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla escribió:
see the minutes after the Karlsruhe meeting:
http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/2008-November/000051.html
The short name was taken in consideration at that time and mentioned as
to-do, therefore a latter decision. sip-router started as project to
create the common core and tm for k and ser, but not as stand-alone
application name.
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/
On 06/24/2009 04:01 PM, Raúl Alexis Betancor
Santana wrote:
Ops, I always really though that SIP-Router was the final name ¿?
If not, when will it be decided?
On Wednesday 24 June 2009 14:49:37 Juha Heinanen
wrote:
This is very bad from project identity point of view. I have been few
weeks ago at a conference in Germany and telling people that I present
sip router, everyone asked "which one?" It really looks ridiculous to
say something like " I manufacture a car named 'car' " (or "I
develop a
sip router name sip router").
Therefore, if matters, there should be some other identifier for the
project to make it easy to refer to others.
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
> We still have the problem that we haven't decided yet on a
> short-name. (while the project is called sip-router, we haven't
> decided on the short binary name). Unfortunately this is proving to
> be very difficult since there are a lot of very different opinions
> (we tried once before and we gave up after 2 days because there was
> no agreement in sight).
my proposal is to call binary/config file sip-router/sip-router.cfg.
sr would be too short. tools, like ctl, could be prefixed with sr.
I like this proposal, look simple and clear.