as per my experience with systems built on top of asterisk not just vanilla asterisk it took like 4 full years from starting implantation for pjsip starting at Mon, 04 Jul 2016 12: >Added PJSIP tables and started integrating it<dd>First round of changes to introduce PJSIP... wow... it will be a huge blood bath, for start, you need asterisk 13.10 and chan_sip is not usable on 13.10. Stay tuned for next releases </dd> till recently on, 11 May 2020 00:55:54 +0200 >Added a way to mass change the tech for extensions from chan_sip to PJSIP and back. It is available on Configuration/Extensions page
and still fixing bugs 94 fixis in four years when doing major changes 4 years is needed minor stuff could go faster think of all the guys who are running asterisk the last 5 years and need a complete change you need time plan sometimes the latest os when you have just another integration crm which for now can work only with the older os etc On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 10:55 PM Joshua C. Colp <jc...@sangoma.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 4:31 PM BJ Weschke <bwesc...@btwtech.com> wrote: > >> Four years, is indeed, really long. I do agree with this. As an example, >> I work with another project where the work involves some integrations with >> software that is in the head units of vehicles. Right now, they’re working >> to certify and lock down code and functionality for the 2023 vehicle model >> year which will hit dealer lots for the first time in just about two years >> from now. Once final certification occurs, in the vast majority of cases, >> nothing changes and the vehicles roll off the assembly line with the >> integration that was certified. If software that is involved in the >> manufacturing of vehicles can manage change risk within a two year window, >> it only seems reasonable that the Asterisk project should be able to do the >> same. >> > > From the development side we certainly can. The question is really - is it > fair to the Asterisk user base, will they they accept it, will there be > substantial backlash? The answer could be its fine. I don't really have a > concrete answer though at this moment and likely wouldn't until put into > action. > > For a 2 year strategy I think it would go as such: > > 1. Minor releases receive change to indicate that module is to be > deprecated in a future major release > 2. Module is marked deprecated and defaultenabled no in standard release > (19), which carries over to next LTS release (20) > 3. Announcement and documentation for each includes notice of deprecated > modules > 4. Standard release after this it is removed (21), which carries over to > next LTS release (22) > 5. Announcement and documentation for each includes notice of removed > modules > > A wiki page would still be kept to keep track of modules in process of > being removed. > > Note that I'm just putting this out there so people see in comparison to > the other one what the process would be like. > > -- > Joshua C. Colp > Asterisk Technical Lead > Sangoma Technologies > Check us out at www.sangoma.com and www.asterisk.org > -- > _____________________________________________________________________ > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- > > asterisk-dev mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
-- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
