[Devel] Re: [Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release

[Jan Janak]

On 14-06-2005 23:41, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> Alberto,
> 
> thanks for the feedback - sometime is very useful to know what the SER 
> users thing about the projects and their  environments.
> 
> The original SER team - as part of Fokus Fraunhofer - split to different 
> companies for a more commercial approach of SER project. The important 
> facto here is how much time you dedicate for the public project and how  
> much feedback you push back to the project.
> 
> And to be honest, even as core developers, I had same impression 
> "Something is wrong, why this guys are not taking my code? 

  What code ?

  - I integrated your changes to usrloc. You did not take into account
    additional branches -- I added that. I already explained the reason
    why I decided for a bit different way on serdev and it is my right
    because I am maintaining those modules.

  - Your patch to rr -- I asked you to implement it using AVPs since
    then I haven't heard from you. I do not want to have another
    function in rr when we are using AVPs for everything else and thus
    it is a logical choice.

  - Backport of radius related changes -- this was actually my code that
    you backported from the trunk. I politely asked you to remove it and
    you refused to do that. The reason why I do not want to backport
    that code was discussed on serusers and serdev thoroughly. 

  - patch to acc submitted by Ramona (I don't know if it can be
    considered as your code) -- that's the only think that I can
    remember that was not integrated.
  
  When I look at your list:

   - alias_db module -- Never contributed
   - additional credential parser -- Never contributed
   - new internal API of auth modules -- Never contributed
   - load_credential_list -- Never contributed
   - PIKE -- why didn't you commit the bugfixes into SER ?
   - t_flush_flags, t_local_replied -- Never contributed

   The list of stuff that you never contributed seems bigger than the
   tree items you proposed recently -- so I do not really understand
   what are you complaining about.

   In addition to that many items from your list listed as NEW are
   actually backported from the trunk, you just modified them slightly
   to your taste (authentication, received sockets in usrloc and
   registrar).

   I don't think that something like this justifies a new fork of the
   whole project.
      
      Jan.