[Users] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 06/16/05 16:30, Giudice, Salvatore wrote:

>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.
>  
>
Here should come the community contribution. OpenSER has the 
documentation for modules updated (as for start-up) and already started 
a dokuwiki site (openser.org/dokuwiki/) for improvements and new docs, 
as well to ease the maintenance. When will be decided where the 
openser.org will be hosted (to allow access to all developers and board 
members), more will show up.

Daniel


>
>
>-----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 iptel.org; serusers at 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 ?
>
>   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 iptel.org,
>>serusers at 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 iptel.org
>>>http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Serusers mailing list
>>>Serusers at iptel.org
>>>http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers 
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Serusers mailing list
>>Serusers at iptel.org
>>http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>
>>mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>>http://mail2web.com/ .
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Serusers mailing list
>>Serusers at iptel.org
>>http://mail.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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>Serusers at iptel.org
>http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>  
>