15 Jun
2005
15 Jun
'05
12:15 a.m.
Hi All People,
what is happening with ser?
It is like astersik business?
Miklos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel-Constantin Mierla" <daniel(a)voice-system.ro>
To: "Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul" <andrei(a)iptel.org>
Cc: "SER developer mailing list" <serdev(a)lists.iptel.org>rg>;
"serusers"
<serusers(a)lists.iptel.org>rg>; <users(a)openser.org>rg>; <devel(a)openser.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
On 06/14/05 22:06, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
This is not about who will mantain openser, this is about fragmenting
the developer comunity, which is realy very bad anyway you put it.
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.
One of the things that pisses me off is that for example you claim to
use radiusclient-ng. Although the discussion about using it 0.9.0 was
only a week ago, you haven't sent any patch.
Somehow it was clear from the mail thread that the maintainer's decision
was to have radiusclient-ng 0.4.x for 0.9.0 and 0.5.0 for cvs head. We did
it to ensure interoperability with new releases of radiusclient-ng (mainly
are file name changes).
Daniel
On Jun 14, 2005 at 21:20, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<daniel(a)voice-system.ro> wrote:
Of course, and we want it ready sooner to be able to move forward, since
for SER takes (more?!?) half a year. Our part of code is ready for release
since winter, SER release will be done when the other is ready, we will
help with packaging at that moment, we always did it.
On 06/14/05 20:39, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
ser as many other open source projects does not have a fixed release. It
is released when it's ready.
On Jun 14, 2005 at 20:10, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
<bogdan(a)voice-system.ro>
wrote:
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.
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 ....
Apart from the code revert, what other problem did
you have?
A lot of time wasted for nothing ...
If you really thought everything was ready, you
should have sent a mail
and an offer to help with the last minute tests & packaging.
There was no discussion about it, no attempt to reconcile what you see
as problems, you've just come with this fork out-of-the-blue.
Remember January, February, March, April ... talks face to face?!?!
Anyhow, we didn't consider some other parts of ser ready (and you know
that), it is why we changed them, otherwise we would have done packaging.
To me it looks as you were searching for some
reason to fork.
Why? Everything is public, is just an alternative to what we, as well as
many SER users, didn't like. Don't try to suggest you were not aware of
our complains, there was a long chain of discussions from December to
April regarding 0.9.x release we had together.
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.
If you would have just created ser packages, it
would have been ok.
Did you review the TLS code? Have you tested it?
While it might be very good I didn't have the chance to look at it in
detail.
Do you have TLS in openser 0.9.0?
No, it will be in next release. openser 0.9.4 is to end for us the long
period of a new SER release so we can focus to new features.
Anyway
anybody can cvs co -rrel_0_9_0 .
>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).
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.
You have found one thing, that I admit it has
taken way too much time
to integrate and now you use it as main fork argument.
This is just one, but there are others, like acc (patch sent long time
before tls -- e.g., a lot of members requested to log source IP and other
fields).
And again a solution has been found for all this:
the experimental
repository.
This was a feature, not a bug :-)
So processing further the retransmissions was a feature ... ok :-)
>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.
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.
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...
Andrei
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers