[Users] Re: [Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

reticent wrote:

>Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Jun 14, 2005 at 20:10, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bogdan at voice-system.ro> wrote:
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Hi SER community,
>>>
>>>there are almost two years from the last official SER release and things 
>>>do not promise too much right now. Not only that the progress stuck 
>>>somewhere on the way (rel 0.9.0 was started more than half a year ago), 
>>>but even any attempt to push thing forward seems to be denied - I tried 
>>>along with Daniel to push the release, but seems that not everybody 
>>>shares our and comunity's interest regarding the public part of SER - 
>>>upgrades were rolled back, new software contributions haven't found 
>>>their way in (like TLS and other new modules), modules maintained by 
>>>other developers are inaccessible.
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>The release is delayed due to lack of time.
>>Current show stoppers were me reviewing the whole tcp code (after finding
>>a minor bug) and some radius makefile problem.
>>Forking ser is a very bad ideea and your exposed reason are far from
>>enough to motivate it.
>>Anyway anybody can cvs co -rrel_0_9_0 .
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>I agree, forking will have a negative effect on SER in the long-run by
>reducing the amount of available resources (programmer time,
>administrative time)
>If there is a problem it should be worked out as a community instead of
>forgoing the difficult task of enacting change (if you think somthing
>needs to change) and simply creating a parallel project.
>I think it is important that not every patch and module simply be added
>to the project but put aside so that someone can review the code and
>make sure it safe and integrates well.
>
>I wouldn't say there has been a lack of progress just because there
>hasn't been a stable release for some time, your own changlog can attest
>to this, there has been many improvements.
>
>I do agree, however, that there should be some facility it place to
>centralize the development of unstable modules that may eventually be
>included in the mainstream distribution or at least in a stable "addons"
>package, so that work may progress more efficientely in those area's.
>
>  
>
having multiple options instead of only one proved in many case to be a 
progress engine. I would rather say that both projects will benefit from 
this. And most important, the user (don't forget them) will: they will 
have a larger diversity to choose from.

indeed, time (and to be more specific, allocated time for the public 
SER) was an important factor for deciding to start OpenSER. Also another 
factor was how to deal with new contributions and how to *help* them to 
get into the main stream. Placing them in a separate directory I think 
will not help too much - see the history of the snmp module.

and about splitting the time between the two projects - I don't thing 
will be a problem for us since we are the people who complain the thing 
are not fast enough ;)

bogdan


>
>  
>
>>>Unfortunately this is not a good environment if we what to have some 
>>>future progress for SER. And this is the main reason for starting a new 
>>>project called OpenSER - http://www.openser.org .
>>>
>>>It's called open because its most important attribute is its opening to 
>>>new ideas and contributions, fast developing and more involvement of the 
>>>comunity. Along with quality, the progress is the main concern.
>>>We will continue to support and develop the SER project as much as so 
>>>far and as much as possible, but OpenSER will give the liberty for more.
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>ser just got an experimental module repository for new stuff that is not
>>tested and/or not reviewed by a core developed (so that it can be added
>>to the ser main repository).
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>>>OpenSER serves the interest of all SER users and will not change its 
>>>purpose - as a fact I have the pleasure to announce its first release - 
>>>OpenSER 0.9.4. The web site offers a comprehensive listing of new 
>>>features and fixes - http://www.openser.org/index.php#features. For 
>>>people already familiar to SER 0.9.3, going to 
>>>http://www.openser.org/diffs-0.9.0.php will be more helpful.
>>>   
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Some of the changes listed in the diffs will break compatibility with
>>current ser configuration scripts. I wonder also when have you tested
>>all your changes.
>>    
>>