On 12/06/16 09:17, George Kiagiadakis wrote: > On 11.06.2016 10:51, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> On 11/06/16 08:35, George Kiagiadakis wrote: >>> On 06/10/2016 06:55 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/06/16 17:49, Stepan Salenikovich wrote: > > [...] > >>> >>> #2 CM should not be named after the implementation because that can also >>> lead to confusion between the two projects (the telepathy CM and the >>> implementation software). See the example of telepathy-sofiasip that >>> became telepathy-rakia (mentioned in the spec as well). This is also a >>> factor against telepathy-ring (or telepathy-ring.cx perhaps) because >>> ring.cx is another software. You don't want users to think that this >>> telepathy CM is somehow part of ring.cx or it can be used to talk to >>> people only if they are using ring.cx on the other side. Maybe another >>> implementation will pop up in the future and then ring.cx will be >>> irrelevant as a name. >>> >> >> This is not so clear cut. >> >> I chose the name telepathy-resiprocate for the resiprocate-based CM >> because telepathy-resiprocate is maintained in the reSIProcate >> repository: >> >> https://github.com/resiprocate/resiprocate/tree/master/apps/telepathy >> >> Maybe an exception should be made so that when a CM is officially part >> of a protocol implementation (reSIProcate is a SIP implementation), then >> it can use the name of the implementation. >> > > Hmm, by the rule this was probably a bad choice, but I can see how you > mean it. Being part of the same project as the implementation maybe > makes those arguments less strong. I guess it remains to be seen whether > this will have the same problem as tp-sofiasip in the future. >
For clarity, it looks like the tp-sofiasip code is not in the SofiaSIP repository: https://sourceforge.net/p/sofia-sip/git/ci/master/tree/ so they are independent projects and that rule makes sense in that case. > I think that the spec is clear about that, though. Quote: > "Connection manager names SHOULD NOT be the same as the name of a > library on which they are based." > Do you think the spec could be revised to accommodate the situation where a CM is maintained by the same vendor as the protocol implementation, most likely in the same repository? Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ telepathy mailing list telepathy@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/telepathy