Re: [Serusers] Re: Fw: [Users] TM : retransmission timers

On Nov 22, 2006 at 12:39, Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at> wrote: [...] I'm sure Jiri has no problem with copying code from ser to openser. We will do the same with some openser modules and we already did with some fixes. The problem here was that it was claimed that ser was dead but in the same time new code commited in ser was added in openser (so the openser history writer was not very well intended). Speaking of copying/porting ser between ser and openser I have a few requests: 1. If someone sends a fix for code taken from ser, which was not modified in openser, please could you also bounce the message to the ser maintainer of that piece of code? If you don't to whom, just send it to me and I will make sure it reaches the right person. I'm asking this because my favourite pass-time is not to scan openser commitlogs for possible fixes to my code (e.g.:http://openser.cvs.sourceforge.net/openser/sip-server/fastlock.h?r1=1.…) and this will help me at a minimum effort for the openser developer part. Of course I think this is true not only for me, but also for other ser and openser developers and I (and I'm sure anybody else on the ser team) will return the favour. 2. Please give proper credits for the code you port from ser. I've saw several times things like: Foo sees something was fixed in ser or a new small feature was added and sends an email to the openser list (specifying that the change/patch comes form ser). The openser developers take the change, but the commit message says something like: fix for XyZ, credits go to Foo (ser is not mentioned at all). It would not only be polite, but it will also help us to filter more easily through the openser fixes. Comming back to the openser - ser performance / features discussion, I think the important part here is how we can improve both sers (and you should take the test results as a bug report and maybe ask yourself how did this go through testing, even old sers were faster then 4000 cps). If you think only of the users, then a combination of ser & openser will be the best version. While we disagree (probably) in many respects, I think there are at least a few clear advantages each version has. For example openser has very impressive documentation (at this time ser is very far away from this point of view) and lots of new modules. ser has also its share of new modules (though I think not so many) and a better/improved "infrastructure" (core, tm and lots of the "base" modules - we are actively improving them). ser code tends to also be more tested and stable (our release policies differ wildly). I've tried looking at openser core & tm commits and I haven't seen any significant changes (and this is not a flamewar attempt). Now the question is why doesn't openser take the core, tm and a big part of the modules from ser completely and concentrate then in adding new modules (which you seem to do anyway)? Does it make sense to re-invent the wheel ? Everybody (me too) suffers at least a little from the not-invented-here syndrome, but if you think of the users and at how much of your time it will save, it will make a lot of sense, even if some compromises would be necessary. I think the advantages will far outweigh the problems. Just think about it, we can concentrate each other on our favourite stuff and we can benefit much more easily from each other's work. Andrei