[Users] RE: [Serusers] OpenSER release

[info at beeplove.com]

I agree with you.
We should have proper bug tracking system, including feature request.

MOhammad



Original Message:
-----------------
From: Giudice, Salvatore Salvatore.Giudice at FMR.COM
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:12:15 -0400
To: daniel at voice-system.ro, andrei at iptel.org, serdev at iptel.org,
serusers at iptel.org, devel at openser.org, users at openser.org
Subject: RE: [Serusers] OpenSER release


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 at voice-system.ro] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 4:28 AM
To: Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul
Cc: SER developer mailing list; serusers; users at openser.org;
devel at 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 at 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 at iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers at iptel.org
http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .