[sr-dev] git:master: * Core, etc, documentation: renamed ser to sip-router

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 06/24/2009 05:42 PM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
> On Jun 24, 2009 at 17:14, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On 06/24/2009 04:50 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
>>     
>>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> I would prefer to stick and keep the name as "sip express router" 
>>>>         
>>> rather > than dry "sip router" -- it makes an unique identifier for the
>>>       
>>>> project.
>>>>         
>>> "sip express router" gives message that the project is just a new
>>> version of ser and does not recognize the work done by lot of people on
>>> openser and kamailio.  if you want a unique identifier, invent a new
>>> one.
>>>  
>>>       
>> I am not eager to find a new one, there is no pressure to release entire 
>> project from sip-router.org git repository under new identity, so I was 
>> happy with using ser so far and no others complained. SER can be from 
>> "sip extensible router" or something else in the middle starting with "E".
>>
>> Regarding the relevance of contributions based on project name, you have 
>> a lot if work done in ser as well, from before the openser fork. Many 
>> others have as well and sip router as name does not suggest/recognize 
>> better the work of people from different project.
>>
>> While sip router is ok to preserve in a way or other in the name, there 
>> is need for something like a middle name so one can quickly match this 
>> project.
>>
>> When talking with people about sip router, the first project coming in 
>> their mind is ser, then is kamailio (openser) (and maybe others), 
>> explaining the existence of a third one named exactly "sip router" is 
>> kind of awkward and very confusing.
>>     
>
>
> Unfortunately this discussion seems to de-generate in a long thread and
> honestly I don't think it would be useful.

I am of same opinion, my focus was to get things integrated, but the 
changes started to happen already, being committed without a proper 
discussion here -- not something good from collaboration point of view.

So now all my testing environment is broken, scripts, paths and so on 
and maybe has to be changed again soon. Probably such actions needs more 
than one hour decision and quickly commit because one just liked more a 
new name than existing one.

Daniel



>  The only result I see is
> time lost, time that could go into development, testing or docs.
> The problem is that for something as simple as a short-name everybody
> has a very strong opinion and there are very few objective criteria to
> filter through the proposals.
> 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).
> We could also delay this to some undefined future point :-)
>
> For the record I do partially agree with Daniel. I do not want a new
> "trademark" for the project, but I think we need a short name, something
> only a few letter long. sr would be great, but unfortunately is too
> common. ser would work for me too (I guess this is no surprise), but I
> understand that some people might not want it.
>
>
> Andrei
>   

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/