[OpenSIPS-Users] [Fwd: [Serdev] the sip router project]

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Jiri,

Have you ever consider a fork as an option driven by technical needs?? 
Like to do something totally different than you have and than the other 
people want to do.

After 7 year of SER/OpenSER I (and many other) got to simplest 
conclusion that the current design is not able to sustain the progress 
of SER / OpenSER (like scripting, async calls, integration, scaling, 
etc) ? Mainly because SER was design 7 years ago when there was only 
stateless processing, no TCP, etc....

And I personally do not see any future in keep trying to patch the 
existing design as it has no future. If SER and kamilio want to go on 
this path, fine with me, not my problem, happy for your joined effort.

But not point in black the idea of somebody forking into a different 
direction than yours - nature invented forking for seeking new alternatives!

Regards,
Bogdan

Jiri Kuthan wrote:
> Adrian Georgescu wrote:
>   
>> Hello Jiri,
>>
>> For myself and Bogdan things are pretty clear. We both have companies 
>> that closely depend on the success of the project and we have contracts 
>> with customers to which we deliver. There is no doubt about who we are, 
>> what we do, what is our motivation and driving factor. Clarity is 
>> something customers need to have for the sake of their current and 
>> future investments.
>>     
>
>   
>> It is pretty unclear at this stage how the new project will shape up. 
>> Merging and forking can lead to inimaginable places as we have seen 
>> before several times and is nothing bad in the end as long as the 
>> eco-system keeps going and the customers invest further in it, which 
>> happend a lot in the last four years.
>>
>> The real customers are the ones that can decide upon the best solution 
>> for their own interests and we shall let them express their choice once 
>> they have enough information and measurements.
>>     
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
> Of course interests of companies and their customers are perfectly 
> legitimate
> and to be accounted for, and transparency is helpful.
>
> I'm just not clear about what possible conclusions relating to the 
> unforking debate
> I may infer?
>
> One way I explain to myself you meant to imply is that you are interested
> in working on the merging effort? I really think forking is a bad thing
> and companies and their customers will benefit of non-balkanized software.
> (More sophisticated arguments about why forking is bad could be found
> under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29)
> Doing harm control is definitely a good thing to do.
>
> -jiri
>