On Jun 24, 2009 at 22:08, Juha Heinanen jh@tutpro.com wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
i asked about renaming of ser.cfg on the list and jan replied that it is ok.
so probably this means the entire project, or? IIRC I replied quite quickly questioning such decision and suggesting to keep ser for now.
i don't know about entire project. i just changed ser.cfg to sip-router.cfg and what else it implied.
You single-handledly changed everything, including the binary name. I don't care so much how a config file is called, but so far there is no decision for the binary name so it should not be changed (I'll revert it).
Even the config changes went a little bit too far, breaking all the scripts (but at least you're taking care of that), for no good reason.
I think such attitude is not going anywhere. What is missing now is that I would say "I am not going to be involved in anything having sip-router hardwired". Sad to see this.
if you want to make it easy to use your own name, change Makefile system so that no file names are hardwired. they simply my changing MAIN_NAME you can get every file (config files, man pages, etc.) named whatever way you like.
I think you should have done that.
The problem that is risen now is the type of actions taken, while we agreed that any changes to common framework have to be properly discussed on devel list, radical changes were done without this rule. I know that this particular issue is a matter of tastes and personal preferences, that's why needs careful handling.
i didn't rename any k files or their contents. i only edited and renamed ser to sip-router. i thought that jan as member or ser project could give such an ok.
Andrei