24 Jun
2009
24 Jun
'09
4:53 p.m.
El Miércoles, 24 de Junio de 2009, Victor Pascual Ávila escribió:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Andrei
Pelinescu-Onciul<andrei(a)iptel.org> wrote:
The question are:
- Does SIP-Router need *right now* the final official name in order to rename
binaries, scripts and config files with it?
- If it's too soon for that, does SIP-Router need *right now* an unique
identifier (something more "unique" than sip-router and less ambiguous than
"ser") for internal user?
I propose a different solution:
A common user or person which doesn't know about the project's origin will not
inspect the sources to find the binary and realize of the software "name".
So the internal identifier could remain as it's now ("ser") in order to make
easy the continuous development.
But in parallel a new official name could be choosen ("Hyper-SIP-Proxy-
MegaPRO") and that would be the name announced in public meeting, web page and
so.
Then, when the first release of Hyper-SIP-Proxy-MegaPRO arrives, all the
binaries, scripts and config files would be renamed to "hyper-sip-proxy-
megapro" (we avoid changing two times the internal identifier during the long
development process).
What doesn't make sense (IMHO) is mantaining "SIP-Router" in the official
page
for long time, and when some people already knows it then releasing a new
official name (this would create confusion).
Just my 3 cents.
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net>
I think the only constructive way to go forward
is to find a commonly
accepted procedure for choosing a name (maybe keep a list of proposals,
that should satisfy a few criterias and then at some point have a vote,
either over the net or during a public meeting).
I believe this would be the most reasonable way to move forward.