[Users] "detached" timer

[Jiri Kuthan]

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/