15 Jun
2005
15 Jun
'05
12:27 p.m.
On 06/14/05 23:21, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Jun 14, 2005 at 22:48, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<daniel(a)voice-system.ro> wrote:
[...]
It is fork for the code that we changed (acc module, usrloc module ...),
in the future may be other that they do not find the path in SER. We
will maintain and upgrade our part of code from SER continuously.
It is your opinion, but I repeat myself, that the
SER code maintained by
us will go further -- I don't think that someone can claim that we
didn't do the job for our code (the only discrepancy is some last-minute
adds in xlog (to print avps) - will be committed on unstable very soon
with the new color patch). The cvs was created just to ease the
maintainance. The patches would be a nightmare.
Maybe I've misunderstood you: is this only a parallel "stabilized"
version + some features or is it a full fork (do you intend to fork
unstable also)?
I have no problem with another stable version, what
worries me is
fragmenting the development for unstable (which is the place where major
changes are made).
I see no fragmenting there -- the situation is the same for SER as it
was before. For example, there is no fragment for acc module, it will be
maintained by who did it till now, adding what he considers necessary
there. But we came to meet a lot of requests of why the acc patch is not
included in the CVS (it was fully backward compatible and had new
features requested by many SER users) and we want to promote _more open_
approach to contributions to all parts of code. The acc patch was sent
on November 1, 2004. No real response (neither negative, nor positive)
from maintainer to the submission since then ... are you aware of a good
reason?!?! ... should we wait just about (or more) half an year for each
contribution?!? I will not do that anymore!!!
Daniel
Andrei