My vote for the renaming. It is very confusing to have mediaproxy-ng + rtpproxy | rtpproxy-ng modules, when you also have mediaproxy module and rtpproxy-proxy and mediaproxy-proxy, IYKWIM.
Regards, On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Juha Heinanen <[email protected]> wrote: > Richard Fuchs writes: > > > We're slowly getting ready for a new major release of mediaproxy-ng > > (3.x), which will include some exciting new features, most importantly > > much improved support for WebRTC. To support those features, rtpproxy-ng > > needs to support additional flags for the offer/answer functions. > > This is great news. In my opinion it would be better to rename > rtpproxy-ng module rather than leave its existing version hanging there, > because I'm sure that current users of the module will migrate to the > new one anyhow. > > -- Juha > > _______________________________________________ > sr-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev > -- Carlos http://caruizdiaz.com http://ngvoice.com +595981146623
_______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
