[Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release

[Jan Janak]

The primary reason is that change in iptel.org zone takes a week.

  Jan.

On 15-06-2005 15:16, m36828253-1 at 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 at teigre.com
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:03:21 +0200
> To: Salvatore.Giudice at FMR.COM, serdev at lists.iptel.org, serusers at 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 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 lists.iptel.org
> > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Serusers mailing list
> > serusers at lists.iptel.org
> > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at 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 at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev