Enver ALTIN wrote:
Hi Stipe,
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 00:56 +0100, Stipe Tolj wrote:
I'd like to promote Rene Kluwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to gain cvs write access in order to contribute his sqlbox as own cvs module.
He is willing to put it under Kannel projection and maintain it inside the cvs module. Which would also allow easier participation of other developers in interest of it.
I think it's indeed a good idea to provide a new home for Rene's work. I'm all for it :)
What I'd love to see within the current situation is, from my limited and little CVS experience, a branch. Maintaining and merging sqlbox as a patch outside the Kannel source tree is probably a real pain, and I really appreciate Rene's work.
But I'm against a seperate CVS module, this doesn't seem to be the Right Way (TM) to do it. A branch would work better and make things much easier for him (merging and such).
hmm, I'm more the fan of like apache does it with apr, apr-util and httpd-2.0 cvs (now svn) modules. They seperated it too. So gateway will be a core cvs module and sqlbox an add-on using the core.
Also, for the long term, I'd like to see sqlbox a part of Kannel, not somewhere outside. So what Rene needs to keep sqlbox going could be done in sync with what we have in current source tree. We could make sqlbox optional with some autoconf magic, but either way, it needs to be properly documented in users' guide and get `integrated` into Kannel.
nop, I disagree here. It "is" part of Kannel, when you consider the project itself. But it shall not be part of the core. More an add-on, like other foobarbox'es.
Stipe
mailto:stolj_{at}_wapme.de ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wapme Systems AG
Vogelsanger Weg 80 40470 D�sseldorf, NRW, Germany
phone: +49.211.74845.0 fax: +49.211.74845.299
mailto:info_{at}_wapme-systems.de http://www.wapme-systems.de/ -------------------------------------------------------------------
