> right. That was the main intention of the clause. I don't see an active > reason > to remove it. Seeing the clause in such a context in legitim and holds still > with current policy on how to add optional features, IMO. > > > Maybe Kalle could shed some light on the matter. > > yep, Kalle may know it best. ;) > I could say that Lasu knows best :] By digging deep into my memories and doing some deductive thinking, I'd say this is because if there is optional modules, automatic checking and keeping it all working is a nightmare. Even one optional module means that all tests should be done 2 times (once without module, once with the module). With 3 optional modules, tests should be run 2^3 (8) times whenever core is changed, and 4 times if certain module is changed.
However, on this entire subject, Kannel has always had this problem of being tied to certain decisions and having problems adopting to new needs.. Full ahead with core changes which are needed for better dlr/sending support I say - even if this would require us to have like 2 different supported 'stable' releases (like 1.4 and 1.6) (but also full -600 to any new high-level feature adds (ringtones, wallpapers, whatever), as they should be outside Kannel) -- &Kalle Marjola ::: Development ::: Helsinki ::: Enpocket
