16 Jun
2005
16 Jun
'05
6:10 p.m.
On 06/16/05 16:30, Giudice, Salvatore wrote:
I would have to agree with you. The ser module
documentation is
definitely in the 'abysmal' category, although it has improved somewhat
in the last 18 months. For example, at least some documentation on
modules like registrar now tell you that the save function returns a 200
ok. To the best of my recollection, this sort of detail wasn't there 18
months ago. If openser can produce decent docs, I can see it getting
much broader support.
Here should come the community contribution. OpenSER has the
documentation for modules updated (as for start-up) and already started
a dokuwiki site (openser.org/dokuwiki/) for improvements and new docs,
as well to ease the maintenance. When will be decided where the
openser.org will be hosted (to allow access to all developers and board
members), more will show up.
Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: Kristin Galway [mailto:klgalway@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:31 PM
To: info(a)beeplove.com; greger(a)teigre.com; Giudice, Salvatore;
serdev(a)iptel.org; serusers(a)iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
This is my first posting to this list but I have been
following for about 5 months now. I began to use SER
back in February and have used versions from 0.8.14 to
cvs versions and have seen plenty of changes here and
there. The biggest thing that really troubles me is
the almost non-existent documentation for the modules.
There has been more than one occasion where I have
run into problems to check the documentation to find
no mention of moving things from one module to
another, or other things such as new features and what
not. Most times I have to dig through the source code
to actually find information.
The sum of this all is that if the fork of OpenSER is
going to present itself as a moving package, with
up-to-date documention and more so, not having to wait
months upon months for a request or a fix to occur. If
OpenSER has that intention then I am all for
supporting it and using the code. Just because the
current code works for some, does not mean that the
rest of us users have to wait for something to happen.
Kristin
Chapter 2. Developer's Guide
To be done.
_________________________________________________________
Chapter 3. Frequently Asked Questions
3.1. What is the meaning of life ?
3.1. What is the meaning of life ?
42
--- "m36828253-1(a)imap.1and1.com"
<m36828253-1(a)imap.1and1.com> wrote:
Why the bug tracking page in a different website.
Why not under iptel.org ?
Mohammad
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Greger V. Teigre greger(a)teigre.com
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:03:21 +0200
To: Salvatore.Giudice(a)FMR.COM, serdev(a)iptel.org,
serusers(a)iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
I completely agree with you. I have been told that
there was an attempt at
introducing a bug-tracking system earlier, but that
it has been difficult.
Anyhow, in setting up policies and procedures around
the experimental
directory, we have decided that usage of
http://bugs.sip-router.org will be
mandatory. Hopefully recent, better integration
between the bug tracking
system and the CVS will make it more convenient to
use also for other CVS
modules (however, I don't have a say there).
g-)
Giudice, Salvatore wrote:
module, usrloc module
same for SER as it
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an advocate for either ser or openser,
but I would like to
comment.
Is openser going to be equipped with a
forum/ticket system where
people can document bugs, feature requests, etc
(non-configuration
issues)?
This is just my observation and you may not agree,
but I believe this
project could be much better maintained if it
used
a more structured
ticketing style system to manage development
issues instead of the
current mailing lists. In my experience, mailing
lists like this
foster a terrible user experience where many
development issues can
go on without response.
Ideally, if there was a mailing list to address
user issues and
ticketing system like the one Digium uses to
manage Asterisk, I think
everyone would benefit by being better informed
and ser would
ultimately be a better product for it. How many
people out there feel
that their issues have fallen through the cracks
in the past couple
years?
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla
[mailto:daniel@voice-system.ro]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 4:28 AM
To: Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul
Cc: SER developer mailing list; serusers;
users(a)openser.org;
devel(a)openser.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
On 06/14/05 23:21, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
>On Jun 14, 2005 at 22:48, Daniel-Constantin
>
>
Mierla
<daniel(a)voice-system.ro> wrote:
>[...]
>
>
>
>
>>It is your opinion, but I repeat myself, that
>>
>>
the SER code
>>maintained by us will go further -- I
don't
>>
>>
think that someone can
>>claim that we didn't do the job for
our code
>>
>>
(the only discrepancy
>>is some last-minute adds in xlog (to print
avps)
>>
>>
- will be
>>committed on unstable very soon
>>
>>
>>with the new color patch). The cvs was created
>>
>>
just to ease the
>>maintainance. The patches would be a
nightmare.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Maybe I've misunderstood you: is this only a
>
>
parallel "stabilized"
>version + some features or is it a full fork
(do
>
>
you intend to fork
unstable
also)?
It is fork for the code that we changed (acc
...),
in the future may be other that they do not find
the path in SER. We
will maintain and upgrade our part of code from
SER continuously.
>I have no problem with another stable
version,
>
>
what worries me is
>fragmenting the development for unstable
(which
>
>
is the place where
major
changes are made).
I see no fragmenting there -- the situation is the
was before. For example, there is no fragment for
acc module, it will
be
maintained by who did it till now, adding what he
considers necessary
there. But we came to meet a lot of requests of
why the acc patch is
not
included in the CVS (it was fully backward
compatible and had new
features requested by many SER users) and we want
to promote _more
open_
approach to contributions to all parts of code.
The acc patch was sent
on November 1, 2004. No real response (neither
negative, nor positive)
from maintainer to the submission since then ...
are you aware of a
good
reason?!?! ... should we wait just about (or more)
half an year for
each
contribution?!? I will not do that anymore!!!
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Andrei
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers