On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Matthew Jordan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mjordan@digium.com" target="_blank">mjordan@digium.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 11/13/2012 09:47 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:<br>
><br>
> One of the biggest takeaways from the discussion so far is that the<br>
> health of the SIP stack's community and how well it plays with the rest<br>
> of the open source ecosystem is very important to people. Ignoring all<br>
> of that and just embedding something is unacceptable. The path to *not*<br>
> doing that must be taken into account when figuring out how much work it<br>
> will be to consume a given library. All of that is in addition to the<br>
> technical merits of any given choice.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>Let's be careful with the word 'unacceptable' :-)<br>
<br>
There are certainly trade-offs to any decision that gets made. Given<br>
the number of variables involved, I can guarantee that regardless of the<br>
final decision reached, some subset of the Asterisk community will be<br>
unhappy. I'd like to pretend that's not the case, but this is too<br>
contentious of an issue for that not to happen.<br>
<br>
So let's just say that having the SIP stack as a separate package is a<br>
highly desirable attribute for package maintainers, and that should<br>
receive sufficient weight when making a decision.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I was careful when writing it. I know what it means. In my opinion, it is in fact unacceptable.</div><div><br></div><div>-- </div><div>Russell Bryant </div>
</div></div>