I agree with you. We should have proper bug tracking system, including feature request.
MOhammad
Original Message: ----------------- From: Giudice, Salvatore Salvatore.Giudice@FMR.COM Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:12:15 -0400 To: daniel@voice-system.ro, andrei@iptel.org, serdev@iptel.org, serusers@iptel.org, devel@openser.org, users@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@voice-system.ro] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 4:28 AM To: Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul Cc: SER developer mailing list; serusers; users@openser.org; devel@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@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@iptel.org http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
_______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@iptel.org http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
There is such a bug tracking system running at
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@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@FMR.COM Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:12:15 -0400 To: daniel@voice-system.ro, andrei@iptel.org, serdev@iptel.org, serusers@iptel.org, devel@openser.org, users@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@voice-system.ro] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 4:28 AM To: Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul Cc: SER developer mailing list; serusers; users@openser.org; devel@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@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@iptel.org http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list Serusers@iptel.org http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Serusers mailing list Serusers@iptel.org http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-
infoļ¼ beeplove.com -
Jan Janak