So 31 submitted patches/feature requests were basically ignored in the
past year and a half? How can this situation be improved? Is there going
to be a commitment to monitor this new ticketing system? How many
patches and more feature requests will need to be reconciled 18 months
from now?
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Janak [mailto:jan@iptel.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 8:57 PM
To: Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul
Cc: serdev(a)lists.iptel.org; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: [Serusers] Re: [Serdev] openser/ser - avoiding forks
Hello,
I am trying to reconcile patches and improvement suggestions that have
been
left unanswered on the mailing lists. I went through serusers and serdev
mailing list archives from the beginning of 2004 till now.
I was mainly focusing on submitted patches and non-trivial feature
requests.
Below is a list of issues that I was able to find in the mailing list
archives.
Given the number of messages that were sent to the lists in the last
year
I am pretty sure that the list below will miss many suggestions.
If you submitted a patch or improvement and it was neither accepted nor
rejected,
and it is still relevant, please resubmit your proposal to
serdev(a)lists.iptel.org
mailing list or (preferably) create an issue in the bug tracking system
at:
http://bugs.sip-router.org
Please re-submit also improvements sent in individual messages to
developers.
Summary
-------
When it comes to accepting improvements, there surely is space for
improvements
but the situation, in my opinion, is not as bad as it may seem from the
recent
discussions. Properly reported bugs get usualy fixed quickly. The more
detailed
description the faster the fix, so I think there are no big problems
with that.
The list at the end of this message contains patches and feature
requests that
I was able to find in the archives. From the list the following issues
have
not yet been closed:
1, 4, 7, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31
And from those only 1, 4, 18, 21, 22, 25, 31 contained patches that
have
been left unanswered. That 7 patches which still need to be processed.
The following patches have in my opinion low importance:
1 - date header in REGISTER replies
18 - radius fix for acc
21 - check_to for digest credentials without database
The following patches can be classified as important:
4 - AVP support in acc
22 - transactional auth replies
25 - Free TLS
31 - Xten improvements of pa
In addition to that there are the following improvement suggestions
which
did not contain any patches: 7, 19, 23, 24
So I was able to find 4 important and 3 less important patches that were
not
integrated in the last 1.5 year from the 31 items below. Also I created
issues
in the bug tracking system for all items below that are not yet closed.
The winner among them in terms of e-mail volume is free TLS, of course.
Jan.
PS: Code back-porting is another issue and is not covered here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
SERUSERS - 2004
---------------
1)
Date Header in REGISTER responses
Feature request by TeleSIP, I have a patch for that already from
Robert Sanders which will be integrated
Status: OPEN
Bug: SER-30
2) PA interoperability with RTC, patch submitted by Klaus Darilion,
integrated by Jamey HICKS
Status: CLOSED
3) branch=0 problem reported on 16 Jul 2004, closed by Jiri
as "not a bug"
Status: CLOSED
4) AVP patch for acc module, submitted by Ramona on 31 Oct 2004
Status: OPEN
Bug: SER-31
SERDEV - 2004
-------------
5)
Video - related patch for nathelper, integrated by Maxim
Status: CLOSED
6)
fix_nated_contact for nathelper (replied by Maxim)
Status: CLOSED
7)
16 Apr 2004
Juha proposed adding npdi and pstn URI parameters (no patches)
Status: OPEN
Bug: SER-32
8)
Maxim submitted patch adding PIDs of all processes into the pid
file, resolved by another means
Status: CLOSED
9)
20 Apr. 2004
Alexander Mayhofer submitted patch for rtpproxy, commited by Maxim
Status: CLOSED
10)
Test for realm in auth_radius too tight, reported by Cesar
Hernandez, fixed by Jan
Status: CLOSED
11)
23 Apr 2004
Multicast support patch, commited by Andrei
Status: CLOSED
12)
24 Apr 2004
Postgres patch by Alexander Mayhofer, in CVS
Status: CLOSED
13)
max_expires patch submitted by Jamey Hicks, in CVS
Status: CLOSED
14)
start/stop commands fro SEMS into serctl by Klaus Darilion, rejected.
Status: CLOSED
15)
30 Jun 2004
User agent support in xlog module by Alexander Mayhofer, in cvs
Status: CLOSED
16)
7 Jul 2004
Patch for configurable user agent string by Maxim, resolved by other
means
Status: CLOSED
17)
21 Jul 2004
Patch for storing user agent string in location table, commited by
Maxim
Status: CLOSED
18)
21 Jul 2004
Radius-related patch for acc module
Status: OPEN
Bug: SER-33
19)
2 Oct 2004
Escaped uri characters are not interpreted properly, no patch
Status: DEFERED
Bug: SER-34
20)
27 Oct 2004
Mysql_ping patch by Dan Pascu, in cvs
Status: CLOSED
21)
10 Nov 2004
uri_db patch to make it possible to use check_to and check_from
without database (submitted by Marian Dumitru).
Status: OPEN
Bug: SER-35
22)
25 Dec 2004
Maxim's patch to make it possible send transactional replies from
authentication modules
Status: OPEN
Bug: SER-36
23)
Additional header fields requested by Juha (server, refer-to)
Status: OPEN
Bug: SER-37
SERUSERS - 2005
---------------
24)
feature request route("string")
Status: DEFERED
Bug: SER-38
25)
Free TLS
Status: OPEN
Bug: SER-39
26)
19 Apr 2005
branch=0 in ACK problem, rejected by Jiri
Status: CLOSED
27)
20 Apr 2005
mysql_ping patch for 0.8.14, not important enough to be commited
to 0.8.14
Status: CLOSED
28)
Backport of radius auth changes from unstable to stable, rejected
Status: CLOSED
SERDEV - 2005
-------------
29)
Transaction replies in auth modules (by Maxim)
Status: OPEN
Bug: SER-36
30)
NAT support in usrloc and registrar, partially done
Status: OPEN
Bug: SER-40
31)
RFC3265,RFC3903 support in pa, I could not find the patch
Status: OPEN
Bug: SER-41
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers