Noone ever supposed red5sip to be a part of Openmeetings due to licensing though I may want otherwise. Adding generally valid statements like "the Sun is hot" does not make sense for a user.
This will only make a user wonder why the statement is there. The point with my comment is "please wait for sip till 3.0 or be ready for surprises in the SIP field". Being honest is important part of our client strategy. That makes little sense describing how good Openmeetings part of integration is till we get the whole thing working well unless you address a person who can fix things. Our users generally are not ready for such challanges. Judging from a recent phone call from the client they are not convinced the whole integration works well. You can also check your comment in the parallel thread concerning "a big problem with vanishing sound". 02.07.2013 23:20 пользователь "Artyom Horuzhenko" <[email protected]> написал: > Alexei, what kind of misleading do you mean? We can't return sip > integeration because it had never been removed and Openmeetings sip side > works well: Openmeetings succesfully allows red5sip to connect, send it > information about sip rooms etc. Audio and video quality is a red5sip > issue. > > > 2013/7/2 Alexei Fedotov <[email protected]> > > > Artyom, IMHO it's a bit late to change. The text you suggest is > misleading > > anyway. > > > > If we return integration in 2.1.1, someone should answer for its low > > quality. Let's have an improvement in the integration field in 3.0 if the > > quality is improved. > > 02.07.2013 22:54 пользователь "Artyom Horuzhenko" <[email protected]> > > написал: > > > > > Before changing readme I'd like to know what other people think about > > this > > > change in readme. > > > > > > > > > 2013/7/2 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Hello Artyom, > > > > > > > > please vote to the dev list > > > > > > > > According to your comment: I hope it will be the last RC :)) > > > > You can add this text to the 3.0.0 README > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Artyom Horuzhenko < > [email protected] > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > My vote is "+1", but I have some comments about readme. It would be > > > > better > > > > > if we will change "Video/audio SIP integration is not a part of > this > > > > Apache > > > > > release." to "Red5sip application is not a part of Openmeetings" > > > because > > > > > Openmeetings contains some sip integeration code and we support it, > > but > > > > > red5sip had never been a part of Openmeetings. I hope we will be > able > > > to > > > > > rewrite red5sip under Apache license somewhen and include it into > > > > > Openmeetings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/7/2 Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > > > From: Maxim Solodovnik <[email protected]> > > > > > > Date: Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:34 PM > > > > > > Subject: [VOTE] Apache OpenMeetings 2.1.1 Release Candidate 2 > > > > > > To: dev <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear OpenMeetings Community, > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a vote about releasing Apache OpenMeetings > > > 2.1.1 > > > > > RC2 > > > > > > > > > > > > RC1 was rejected because of: > > > > > > > > > > > > - too few VOTE activity > > > > > > > > > > > > - incomplete README > > > > > > > > > > > > Main changes are covered in the Readme: > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1.1RC2/READMEFull > > > > > > Changelog: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1.1RC2/CHANGELOGRelease > > > > > > artefacts: > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1.1/rc2/Tag: > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openmeetings/tags/2.1.1RC2/ PGP > > > > release > > > > > > keys (signed using C467526E): > > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/openmeetings/2.1.1/rc2/KEYSVote > > > > > > will be open for 72 hours. [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] > -1 > > > > > > disapprove (and reason why) My vote is +1. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > WBR > > > > > > Maxim aka solomax > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > WBR > > > > > > Maxim aka solomax > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > WBR > > > > Maxim aka solomax > > > > > > > > > >
