[Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release

[Greger V. Teigre]

Also, try following the link: http://sip-router.org/... :-)
g-)

Jan Janak wrote:
> 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