31 Mar
2007
31 Mar
'07
2:14 a.m.
At 18:58 30/03/2007, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
jiri,
let us be realistic !!!
the policy (internal - about the code, targets and speed - and external - regarding
contributions and user's wishes) was the key factor that made for us necessary to fork
OpenSER.
I am kind of not very certain that neither this was the factor not it was
necessary. Actually I remember that folks with insight into this were
(and I maintain quite by right) rather concerned. To refresh your memory
I recommend you this thread:
http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2005-June/005120.html
having this in mind, I see no fundamentals for your
"split-work" idea (I'm afraid it is just a diversion/advertising thing)...
The success of a piece of code relies on the unity and synchronization of the developers!
I agree with the statement, which appears to be in contrast with the fork
you apparently consider "necessary".
Not that there would not be good progress -- the 1.2.0 release list seems to have
great deal of inspiration from ottendorf, it is just I don't understand why some
folks are upset about fixing TM.
-jiri
so, let us not bore the users from this list....they
have better thinks to learn from it.
regards
bogdan
Jiri Kuthan wrote:
That's been also one of the flamed topics a
while
ago when proponents of SER suggested to split the work between openser and
ser contributors so that SER works on the under-the-hood thigns and openser
on the priotirized applications, to aovid contributors doing the same thing
twice. Nevertheless, the interest appeared rather negative.
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/