Re: [asterisk-biz] General development funding: discussion and survey

Kevin P. Fleming wrote:

Bill Michaelson wrote:   

>And when I recently tried to use a redfone foneBRIDGE, a product that >can be regarded as competitive to Digium HW offerings, I discovered that >the process of building the driver was very cumbersome because the >required module was removed from the zaptel code repository by  the >maintainers of the repository.  I traced this back to some kind of an >apparent spat between the developer and the maintainers, nominally about >coding standards.  I viewed it through another lens, as do others >undoubtedly view suggestions by Digium that people should contribute to >a SW development fund.   

 That is incorrect. There was never any redfone driver in the Zaptel repository, so there was nothing to remove. The driver that is it based on is still there (even in DAHDI).   

Perhaps I am mistaken, or there is a semantic distinction.  But I obtained the code required to support the foneBRIDGE from an old driver listing in a changelog, because the required module was not present, if I recall correctly.  I believe the author was named Benden.

 I believe that redfone did submit their driver for inclusion into Zaptel, and that it was rejected for the reasons you mentioned (coding guidelines and code quality). We do not accept code that does not conform to at least reasonable standards of quality, because doing so would allow the code base to deteriorate and increase everyone else's support burden.    

That's a noble goal.  Indeed, it was the rationale stated in the logs associated with the repository.

I can tell you that in this instance, the absence of readily available working code increased my support burden as well.