On 4/1/2010 9:33 AM, Josh Patten wrote: > Since IM bot is being yanked would it be possible to implement feature > codes for call screening? > > Josh Patten > Assistant Network Administrator > Brazos County IT Dept. > (979) 361-4676 > > > On 4/1/2010 8:24 AM, Josh Patten wrote: > >> Am I to understand that there will be no IM bot functionality in 4.2? If >> that is the case then why even include the IM engine? This was one of >> the main reasons I was looking forward to 4.2, namely the call screening >> functionality. >> >> Without the IM engine the IM system is rather "ordinary" and could >> easily be implemented without the aid of sipX AND be properly integrated >> with LDAP. I am still taken aback that this completed feature is being >> yanked. >> >> Josh Patten >> Assistant Network Administrator >> Brazos County IT Dept. >> (979) 361-4676 >> >> >> On 4/1/2010 8:02 AM, Alfred Campbell wrote: >> >> >>> On 4/1/2010 7:17 AM, Andy Spitzer wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Woof! >>>> >>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:21:40 -0400,<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> remove sipximbot from the public repository and sipX build >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> And so it begins. Anyone care to comment on the reason for this? >>>> >>>> "The Avalanche has begun. It's too late for the pebbles to vote." >>>> - The Vorlon Ambassador, Babylon Five >>>> >>>> >>>> --Woof! >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Business decisions being made with respect to content and the commercial >>> offering is all. >>> >>> This should have been communicated ahead of time and we will need to do >>> a better job of that going forward. Reality is as the project matures >>> there will be more content that we only put in the commercial offering. >>> This doesn't mean there won't be anymore open source content. The >>> business folks at Avaya believe there is a need to have a difference in >>> content between the open source and commercial offering. We can debate >>> that premise however it won't change anything. Believe me when I tell >>> you its all been debated... >>> >>> The one thing I am sorry about with this content is we never should have >>> made it available IF we were going to end up removing it. >>> >>> On a positive note really hoping we can release 4.2 soon. Just working >>> out some last bugs. When this query hits zero you should see an open >>> source release: >>> http://track.sipfoundry.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+XX+AND+priority+in+%28Blocker%2C+Critical%29+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%224.1.7%22+ORDER+BY+key+DESC >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] >>> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev >>> Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev >>> sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/ >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] >> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev >> Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev >> sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/ >> >> > _______________________________________________ > sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev > Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev > sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/ >
Josh understand the frustration but try to keep it useful.... _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
