[Serusers] OpenSER release

Thu Jun 16 15:30:51 CEST 2005

I would have to agree with you. The ser module documentation is
definitely in the 'abysmal' category, although it has improved somewhat
in the last 18 months. For example, at least some documentation on
modules like registrar now tell you that the save function returns a 200
ok. To the best of my recollection, this sort of detail wasn't there 18
months ago. If openser can produce decent docs, I can see it getting
much broader support.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kristin Galway [mailto:klgalway at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 7:31 PM
To: info at beeplove.com; greger at teigre.com; Giudice, Salvatore;
serdev at lists.iptel.org; serusers at lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release

This is my first posting to this list but I have been
following for about 5 months now. I began to use SER
back in February and have used versions from 0.8.14 to
cvs versions and have seen plenty of changes here and
there. The biggest thing that really troubles me is
the almost non-existent documentation for the modules.
There  has been more than one occasion where I have
run into problems to check the documentation to find
no mention of moving things from one module to
another, or other things such as new features and what
not. Most times I have to dig through the source code
to actually find information.

The sum of this all is that if the fork of OpenSER is
going to present itself as a moving package, with
up-to-date documention and more so, not having to wait
months upon months for a request or a fix to occur. If
OpenSER has that intention then I am all for
supporting it and using the code. Just because the
current code works for some, does not mean that the
rest of us users have to wait for something to happen.

Kristin

Chapter 2. Developer's Guide

   To be done.

_________________________________________________________

Chapter 3. Frequently Asked Questions

   3.1. What is the meaning of life ?

   42

--- "m36828253-1 at imap.1and1.com"
<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/ .
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> 

__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html