15 Jun
2005
15 Jun
'05
10:12 p.m.
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.
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)iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
15 Jun
15 Jun
11:03 p.m.
New subject: [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.
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 
16 Jun
16 Jun
7:57 a.m.
New subject: [Serusers] OpenSER release
And what about documentation? When was the last time that Administration
Guide was updated? And what about the Modules documentation?
Regards
Alberto Cruz
Greger V. Teigre wrote:
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
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 
1:35 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] OpenSER release
Hi!
I would provide additional documentation (to the modules I'm familiar
with) - but the problem is the way how documentation must be added.
I'm not familiar with sgml. I do not know the syntax, I do not know how
to create the README file out of the sgml file. I'm not a cvs expert.
Adding documentation is to complex. I already added asterisk
documentation to voip-info because it is very easy to do.
Maybe we could find an easier way for providing documentation.
regards,
klaus
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:57:06PM -0500, Alberto Cruz
wrote:
And what about documentation? When was the last
time that Administration
Guide was updated? And what about the Modules documentation?
Are you volunteering?
-Maxim
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
2:43 p.m.
New subject: [Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
I dont think you should consider a Wiki (ie. voip-info) as equal to
"official" documentation for a project.
That said, I agree that a Wiki run by some kind of authority in the SER
community would be a good idea.
Cheers, Soren
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Hi!
I would provide additional documentation (to the modules I'm familiar
with) - but the problem is the way how documentation must be added.
I'm not familiar with sgml. I do not know the syntax, I do not know
how to create the README file out of the sgml file. I'm not a cvs expert.
Adding documentation is to complex. I already added asterisk
documentation to voip-info because it is very easy to do.
Maybe we could find an easier way for providing documentation.
regards,
klaus
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 10:57:06PM -0500, Alberto
Cruz wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serdev mailing list
serdev(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev And what about documentation? When was the last
time that
Administration Guide was updated? And what about the Modules
documentation?
Are you volunteering?
-Maxim
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
6:23 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] OpenSER release
On 16-06-2005 11:35, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Hi!
I would provide additional documentation (to the modules I'm familiar
with) - but the problem is the way how documentation must be added.
I'm not familiar with sgml. I do not know the syntax, I do not know how
to create the README file out of the sgml file. I'm not a cvs expert.
The format is docbook: http://www.docbook.org
It is not complex, in my opinion, and you only need a couple of basic
tags (you can use existing docs as reference).
We usually generate READMEs before every release.
Adding documentation is to complex. I already added
asterisk
documentation to voip-info because it is very easy to do.
Maybe we could find an easier way for providing documentation.
Suggestions welcome.
Jan.
7:13 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] OpenSER release
Jan Janak wrote:
I would prefer a webbased solution. Everytime I resolve an issue about
ser and I want to add a note to the documentation, I want to do it in a
fast way. I would go the the webpage (need not be a wiki), enhance the
existing document - done. Commiting the new documentation to CVS and
generating the README should be done automatically.
I do not know if such tools exist.
btw: why do developers enhance ser without updating the documentation? I
guess because it is too time-consuming.
regards,
klaus
On 16-06-2005 11:35, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Thus, CVS-users must read sgml files drectly from the CVS to get
documentation :-(
Generation of the README should be done automatically - e.g. every night
using a cron job.
Hi!
I would provide additional documentation (to the modules I'm familiar
with) - but the problem is the way how documentation must be added.
I'm not familiar with sgml. I do not know the syntax, I do not know how
to create the README file out of the sgml file. I'm not a cvs expert.
The format is docbook: http://www.docbook.org
It is not complex, in my opinion, and you only need a couple of basic
tags (you can use existing docs as reference).
We usually generate READMEs before every release. Adding
documentation is to complex. I already added asterisk
documentation to voip-info because it is very easy to do.
Maybe we could find an easier way for providing documentation.
Suggestions welcome. 
7:37 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] OpenSER release
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Jan Janak wrote:
Users of CVS version should know how to generate up to date
documentation from the sgml when necessary, otherwise there is no point
for them to use CVS version in the first place.
-Maxim
On 16-06-2005 11:35, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Thus, CVS-users must read sgml files drectly from the CVS to get
documentation :-( Hi!
I would provide additional documentation (to the modules I'm familiar
with) - but the problem is the way how documentation must be added.
I'm not familiar with sgml. I do not know the syntax, I do not know
how to create the README file out of the sgml file. I'm not a cvs
expert.
The format is docbook: http://www.docbook.org
It is not complex, in my opinion, and you only need a couple of basic
tags (you can use existing docs as reference).
We usually generate READMEs before every release.
Generation of the README should be done automatically - e.g. every night
using a cron job.
I would prefer a webbased solution. Everytime I resolve an issue about
ser and I want to add a note to the documentation, I want to do it in a
fast way. I would go the the webpage (need not be a wiki), enhance the
existing document - done. Commiting the new documentation to CVS and
generating the README should be done automatically.
I do not know if such tools exist.
btw: why do developers enhance ser without updating the documentation? I
guess because it is too time-consuming.
regards,
klaus
Adding
documentation is to complex. I already added asterisk
documentation to voip-info because it is very easy to do.
Maybe we could find an easier way for providing documentation.
Suggestions welcome.
8:22 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] OpenSER release
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Klaus Darilion wrote:
Thus, CVS users may not have an easy way to read documentation? Maybe we
should delete all init.d scripts from CVS as CVS users must be able
write them themself!
I tried once but failed installing the proper software and DTDs. When it
really that easy, maybe someone can help us adding a "make
documentation" to the Makefile.
Developers complain that too less users are WRITING documentation.
I'm willing to WRITE documentation, but I don't like DEVELOPING
documentation.
regards,
Klaus
Thus, CVS-users must read sgml files drectly from
the CVS to get
documentation :-(
Users of CVS version should know how to generate up to date
documentation from the sgml when necessary, otherwise there is no point
for them to use CVS version in the first place.
-Maxim
Generation of the README should be done automatically - e.g. every
night using a cron job.
I would prefer a webbased solution. Everytime I resolve an issue about
ser and I want to add a note to the documentation, I want to do it in
a fast way. I would go the the webpage (need not be a wiki), enhance
the existing document - done. Commiting the new documentation to CVS
and generating the README should be done automatically.
I do not know if such tools exist.
btw: why do developers enhance ser without updating the documentation?
I guess because it is too time-consuming.
regards,
klaus
Adding
documentation is to complex. I already added asterisk
documentation to voip-info because it is very easy to do.
Maybe we could find an easier way for providing documentation.
Suggestions welcome. 
8:40 p.m.
New subject: sgm -> html; was: Re: [Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
Thus,
CVS-users must read sgml files drectly from the CVS to get
documentation :-(
Users of CVS version should know how to generate up to date
documentation from the sgml when necessary, otherwise there is no point
for them to use CVS version in the first place. 
9 p.m.
New subject: [Users] Re: sgm -> html; was: Re: [Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
On 06/16/05 19:40, Ingo Wolfsberger wrote:
Uhm... it was not easy to find a way to convert them to html but its easy.
jw -u -o pathtooutputdir/ patchtothesgmlfile/nameofthesgmlfile
jw is a dookbook tool.
There are some other useful tools (which actually are wrappers):
docbook2txt
docbook2html
docbook2pdf
The makefile in the new fork has now command to automatically generate
the documentation based on this tools, e.g.,
make modules-readme
make modules-docbook-html
...
Daniel
Thus, CVS-users must read sgml files drectly from the
CVS to get
documentation :-(
Users of CVS version should know how to generate up to date
documentation from the sgml when necessary, otherwise there is no point
for them to use CVS version in the first place.
bye,
Ingo
17 Jun
17 Jun
10:59 a.m.
New subject: sgm -> html; was: Re: [Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
There
are some other useful tools (which actually are wrappers):
docbook2txt
docbook2html
docbook2pdf
The makefile in the new fork has now command to automatically generate
the documentation based on this tools, e.g.,
make modules-readme
make modules-docbook-html
...
cool.
btw: Will you "backport" such features to ser?
regards,
klaus
3:45 p.m.
New subject: sgm -> html; was: Re: [Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
On 06/17/05 09:59, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
There are some other useful tools (which actually are wrappers):
docbook2txt
docbook2html
docbook2pdf
The makefile in the new fork has now command to automatically
generate the documentation based on this tools, e.g.,
make modules-readme
make modules-docbook-html
...
cool.
btw: Will you "backport" such features to ser?
sure, I will create a patch.
Daniel
regards,
klaus
20 Jun
20 Jun
6:43 p.m.
New subject: sgm -> html; was: Re: [Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
On 06/17/05 14:45, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 06/17/05 09:59, Klaus Darilion wrote:
It was impossible to create and applicable patch -- there were some
other changes in the Makefile, so I considered better to send the new
make commands as attachment. You just have to copy and paste at the end
of your Makefile.
Daniel
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
There are some other useful tools (which actually are wrappers):
docbook2txt
docbook2html
docbook2pdf
The makefile in the new fork has now command to automatically
generate the documentation based on this tools, e.g.,
make modules-readme
make modules-docbook-html
...
cool.
btw: Will you "backport" such features to ser?
sure, I will create a patch.
Daniel
.PHONY: modules-readme
modules-readme:
-@for r in $(modules_basenames) "" ; do \
if [ -d "modules/$$r/doc" ]; then \
cd "modules/$$r/doc" ; \
if [ -f "$$r".sgml ]; then \
echo "" ; \
echo "docbook2txt $$r.sgml" ; \
docbook2txt "$$r".sgml ; \
mv "$$r".txt ../README ; \
fi ; \
cd ../../.. ; \
fi ; \
done
.PHONY: modules-docbook-txt
modules-docbook-txt:
-@for r in $(modules_basenames) "" ; do \
if [ -d "modules/$$r/doc" ]; then \
cd "modules/$$r/doc" ; \
if [ -f "$$r".sgml ]; then \
echo "" ; \
echo "docbook2txt $$r.sgml" ; \
docbook2txt "$$r".sgml ; \
fi ; \
cd ../../.. ; \
fi ; \
done
.PHONY: modules-docbook-html
modules-docbook-html:
-@for r in $(modules_basenames) "" ; do \
if [ -d "modules/$$r/doc" ]; then \
cd "modules/$$r/doc" ; \
if [ -f "$$r".sgml ]; then \
echo "" ; \
echo "docbook2html -u $$r.sgml" ; \
docbook2html -u "$$r".sgml ; \
fi ; \
cd ../../.. ; \
fi ; \
done
.PHONY: modules-docbook-pdf
modules-docbook-pdf:
-@for r in $(modules_basenames) "" ; do \
if [ -d "modules/$$r/doc" ]; then \
cd "modules/$$r/doc" ; \
if [ -f "$$r".sgml ]; then \
echo "" ; \
echo "docbook2pdf $$r.sgml" ; \
docbook2pdf "$$r".sgml ; \
fi ; \
cd ../../.. ; \
fi ; \
done
.PHONY: modules-docbook
modules-docbook: modules-docbook-txt modules-docbook-html modules-docbook-pdf
install-modules-docbook: $(doc-prefix)/$(doc-dir)
-@for r in $(modules_basenames) "" ; do \
if [ -n "$$r" ]; then \
if [ -d modules/"$$r"/doc ]; then \
if [ -f modules/"$$r"/doc/"$$r".txt ]; then \
$(INSTALL-TOUCH) $(doc-prefix)/$(doc-dir)/"$$r".txt ; \
$(INSTALL-DOC) modules/"$$r"/doc/"$$r".txt \
$(doc-prefix)/$(doc-dir)/"$$r".txt ; \
fi ; \
if [ -f modules/"$$r"/doc/"$$r".html ]; then \
$(INSTALL-TOUCH) $(doc-prefix)/$(doc-dir)/"$$r".html ; \
$(INSTALL-DOC) modules/"$$r"/doc/"$$r".html \
$(doc-prefix)/$(doc-dir)/"$$r".html ; \
fi ; \
if [ -f modules/"$$r"/doc/"$$r".pdf ]; then \
$(INSTALL-TOUCH) $(doc-prefix)/$(doc-dir)/"$$r".pdf ; \
$(INSTALL-DOC) modules/"$$r"/doc/"$$r".pdf \
$(doc-prefix)/$(doc-dir)/"$$r".pdf ; \
fi ; \
fi ; \
fi ; \
done
regards,
klaus
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
16 Jun
16 Jun
8:45 p.m.
New subject: [Serusers] OpenSER release
Maxim Sobolev writes:
Users of CVS version should know how to generate up to
date
documentation from the sgml when necessary, otherwise there is no point
for them to use CVS version in the first place.
how about including in each module Makefile a README entry, i.e., "make
README" would generate the file from sgml sources.
-- juha
9:08 p.m.
New subject: [Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
Juha Heinanen wrote:
Maxim Sobolev writes:
That makes great sense, actually it should be in the Makefile.rules.
Still one will need to have enough clue to install docbook and friends.
-Maxim
Users of CVS version should know how to generate
up to date
documentation from the sgml when necessary, otherwise there is no point
for them to use CVS version in the first place.
how about including in each module Makefile a README entry, i.e., "make
README" would generate the file from sgml sources.
8:45 p.m.
New subject: [Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
On 16-06-2005 11:35, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Hi!
I would provide additional documentation (to the modules I'm familiar
with) - but the problem is the way how documentation must be added.
I'm not familiar with sgml. I do not know the syntax, I do not know how
to create the README file out of the sgml file. I'm not a cvs expert.
Adding documentation is to complex. I already added asterisk
documentation to voip-info because it is very easy to do.
Maybe we could find an easier way for providing documentation.
There is a whole section on SER in the voip-info wiki:
http://www.voip-info.org/tiki-index.php?page=SIP+Express+Router
And guess what, most of the documentation just points back to the
documentation generated from the docbook files.
Why people are not using that ? It has been there for ages, it was
announced on the mailing lists several times and there is a link to it
from the offical SER web page. Or is this still not obvious enough ?
I must be missing something, because I don't know how to make it any easier.
Do you want something like http://wiki.iptel.org ?
Is this the major problem ? If so I would be happy to create it.
Jan.
8:50 p.m.
New subject: [Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
On Thursday 16 June 2005 18:45, Jan Janak wrote:
On 16-06-2005 11:35, Klaus Darilion wrote:
There is a whole section on SER in the voip-info wiki:
http://www.voip-info.org/tiki-index.php?page=SIP+Express+Router
iptel.org, berlios.de, onsip.org, voip-info.org... please tell me the missing
SER developer/user info sites that I've missed, there are far too few for my
taste.
Seriously, I think this is one of the main problems of the SER project. I've
seen people talk about a bugtracker, but not a single one mentioned the
bugtracker from Berlios. By which I extrapolate that even the developers have
lost the overview.
--
Marc Haisenko
Systemspezialist
Webport IT-Services GmbH
mailto: haisenko(a)webport.de
8:50 p.m.
New subject: [Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
I must be missing something, because I don't
know how to make it any
easier.
Do you want something like http://wiki.iptel.org ?
Would be great.
Is this the major problem ? If so I would be happy
to create it.
use tikiwiki, then its even possible to have a forum with votes.
bye,
Ingo
--
Geschenkt: 3 Monate GMX ProMail gratis + 3 Ausgaben stern gratis
++ Jetzt anmelden & testen ++ http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail ++
9:12 p.m.
New subject: [Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
Jan Janak wrote:
On 16-06-2005 11:35, Klaus Darilion wrote:
Things are a little different. asterisk didn't had any documentation at
all, those the wiki was accepted by users and they started writing the
docu. ser already had a good docu (admins guide), thus, adding
documentation to the wiki generates either redundancy, or an information
split (one function documented on iptel.org, another one documented on
the wiki). IMO, this is the reason why a wiki for ser is not the best
solution.
Hi!
I would provide additional documentation (to the modules I'm familiar
with) - but the problem is the way how documentation must be added.
I'm not familiar with sgml. I do not know the syntax, I do not know how
to create the README file out of the sgml file. I'm not a cvs expert.
Adding documentation is to complex. I already added asterisk
documentation to voip-info because it is very easy to do.
Maybe we could find an easier way for providing documentation.
There is a whole section on SER in the voip-info wiki:
http://www.voip-info.org/tiki-index.php?page=SIP+Express+Router
And guess what, most of the documentation just points back to the
documentation generated from the docbook files. Why people are not using that ? It has been there
for ages, it was
announced on the mailing lists several times and there is a link to it
from the offical SER web page. Or is this still not obvious enough ?
I must be missing something, because I don't know how to make it any easier.
Do you want something like http://wiki.iptel.org ?
Is this the major problem ? If so I would be happy to create it.
There is one thing that must be avoided - duplicated documentation.
Thus, we should stay with README files, or move them into a wiki - not
both of them. Furthermore we would need a wiki with branches - so that
users see which features are supported in which versions.
btw: and the wiki (hardware+software) should be more powerful than
voip-info :-)
regards,
klaus
5:19 a.m.
New subject: [Users] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release
On 15-06-2005 14:12, 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?
I agree. We had an internal discussion about this a long time ago and
came to the conclusion that it might be a good idea to give a bug
tracking system another try (we tried to use it at the beginning of
the project but it did not work).
So I set up Jira at http://bugs.sip-router.org and announced it to
serdev. There was no feedback and I did not want to push it at that
time (which was a mistake, probably).
Jan.
17 Jun
17 Jun
8:49 p.m.
New subject: [Users] new forum -- (was Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release)
On 06/15/05 21:12, 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)?
Thanks to VoIPUser.org, which volunteered to host and maintain, the
OpenSER has already a forum for its community.
Visit it at your convenience at:
http://www.voipuser.org/forum_view_24.html
Daniel
7085
days inactive
7090
days old
23 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Alberto Cruz -
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -
Giudice, Salvatore -
Greger V. Teigre -
Ingo Wolfsberger -
Jan Janak -
Juha Heinanen -
Klaus Darilion -
Marc Haisenko -
Maxim Sobolev -
Soren Davidsen