The primary reason is that change in iptel.org zone takes a week. Jan. On 15-06-2005 15:16, m36828253-1(a)imap.1and1.com wrote: > 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: >> >>> 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)? >>> >>> >> 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. >> >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ . > > > _______________________________________________ > Serdev mailing list > serdev(a)lists.iptel.org > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev