14 Jun
2005
14 Jun
'05
8:20 p.m.
On 06/14/05 20:39, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
The script compatibility is kept. There were only fixes -- the main is
the one that fix return 0 from script methods, which was a known bug,
but somehow kept silent. Many methods rely on that behavior (e.g.,
t_newtran() for retransmissions) and the bug caused very hard to trace
problems.
On Jun 14, 2005 at 20:10, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
<bogdan(a)voice-system.ro> wrote:
Well, that was the the main reason, the start for new release was
announced on the 16th December, last year, a half an year ago. Some of
us declared maintained code ready for release in about one month. Others
had no time till now and they didn't announce any schedule, some of us
volunteered to test and fix other's code, they did it and afterwards the
code was reverted. The SER community was always confused in this period
about the new release, what is the status, when is going to be ....
Hi SER community,
there are almost two years from the last official SER release and things
do not promise too much right now. Not only that the progress stuck
somewhere on the way (rel 0.9.0 was started more than half a year ago),
but even any attempt to push thing forward seems to be denied - I tried
along with Daniel to push the release, but seems that not everybody
shares our and comunity's interest regarding the public part of SER -
upgrades were rolled back, new software contributions haven't found
their way in (like TLS and other new modules), modules maintained by
other developers are inaccessible.
The release is delayed due to lack of time.
Current show stoppers were me reviewing the whole tcp code (after finding
a minor bug) and some radius makefile problem.
Forking ser is a very bad ideea and your exposed reason
are far from
enough to motivate it.
The fork will be only for the code which is not maintained by the
developers from Voice System, when it is the case (a lot of modules are
the same, but we cannot accept some other parts of code). Voice System
developers will maintain own code from SER as they did it so far -- it
is stated clear at http://www.openser.org . OpenSER will be an extra
work to maintain for us. Maintainers of code modified by us can import
it in their part, if they consider it good, there is no problem.
Anyway anybody can cvs co -rrel_0_9_0 .
This is not a good solution always. Some parts which are mandatory in
SIP RFC (TLS) should be accepted as soon as possible to get stable very
soon. But it was suggested somehow on the mailing list that some of them
will not be accepted easily, even if many community members requested.
Unfortunately this is not a good environment if we
what to have some
future progress for SER. And this is the main reason for starting a new
project called OpenSER - http://www.openser.org .
It's called open because its most important attribute is its opening to
new ideas and contributions, fast developing and more involvement of the
comunity. Along with quality, the progress is the main concern.
We will continue to support and develop the SER project as much as so
far and as much as possible, but OpenSER will give the liberty for more.
ser just got an experimental module repository for new stuff that is not
tested and/or not reviewed by a core developed (so that it can be added
to the ser main repository).
OpenSER serves the interest of all SER users and
will not change its
purpose - as a fact I have the pleasure to announce its first release -
OpenSER 0.9.4. The web site offers a comprehensive listing of new
features and fixes - http://www.openser.org/index.php#features. For
people already familiar to SER 0.9.3, going to
http://www.openser.org/diffs-0.9.0.php will be more helpful.
Some of the changes listed in the diffs will break compatibility with
current ser configuration scripts.
I wonder also when have you tested
all your changes.
There is more than one month for most of the changes and we tested as
much as possible, but no release will be bug free (even you discovered a
bug of 0.8.14 a day ago). There is enough space for patch releases...
Daniel
Andrei
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers