[Users] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release

[Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul]

On Jun 14, 2005 at 21:20, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <daniel at voice-system.ro> wrote:
> On 06/14/05 20:39, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
> 
> >On Jun 14, 2005 at 20:10, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bogdan at 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 ....

ser as many other open source projects does not have a fixed release. It
is released when it's ready.
Apart from the code revert, what other problem did you have?

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.
To me it looks as you were searching for some reason to fork.

> 
> >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.

This is not about who will mantain openser, this is about fragmenting
the developer comunity, which is realy very bad anyway you put it.
If you would have just created ser packages, it would have been ok.


> 
> >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.

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?
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. 
And again a solution has been found for all this: the experimental
repository.

> 
> > 
> >
> >>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.

This was a feature, not a bug :-)

> 
> >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...

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.


Andrei