16 Jun
2005
16 Jun
'05
1:18 a.m.
Is anyone using this bug tracking system? Is this system sponsored by
iptel.org?
-----Original Message-----
From: m36828253-1(a)imap.1and1.com [mailto:m36828253-1@pop.1and1.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:16 PM
To: greger(a)teigre.com; Giudice, Salvatore; serdev(a)lists.iptel.org;
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
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)lists.iptel.org, serusers(a)lists.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:
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:
It is fork for the code that we changed (acc module, usrloc module
...),
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.
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
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)?
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 same for SER as it
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
Andrei
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers