[Serusers] OpenSER release

[Giudice, Salvatore]

Policy is only as good as its communication to the people it applies to.
Besides the initial announcement, how many times was this site
publicized in the mailing list or enforced as standard practice to have
patches added to the project?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Janak [mailto:jan at iptel.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 9:08 PM
To: info at beeplove.com
Cc: Giudice, Salvatore; daniel at voice-system.ro; andrei at iptel.org;
serdev at lists.iptel.org; serusers at lists.iptel.org; devel at openser.org;
users at openser.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release

There is such a bug tracking system running at

http://bugs.sip-router.org

It is powered by Jira and is quite easy to use. I announced it to serdev
mailing list some time ago but there seemed to be no interest, from
core developers only myself and Andrei created accounts. I was using it
for a while and I find it easy to use and convenient.

  Jan.

On 15-06-2005 14:24, info at beeplove.com wrote:
> 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 lists.iptel.org,
> serusers at lists.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 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