As far I can see (using a filter on Matches versions: 0.9.3), there are no issues. The same search, but using HEAD, gives me 22 issues. Jan stated that everything he is aware of has been registered at http://bugs.sip-router.org/.
I would like to make a call for submissions on http://bugs.sip-router.org/ of lacking documentation that you either have identified and started on (ref. earlier calls for documentation) or just identified (so that others may pick up the documentation effort). Let's try to make 0.9.x documentation as complete as possible now leading up to the release!! g-)
Klaus Darilion wrote:
maybe on the bugtracker?
Juha Heinanen wrote:
is there somewhere a list of rel_0_9_0 release critical bugs/missing things? it would be high time to release the next stable version and if the lists exists, perhaps people could help to fix the loose ends. -- juha
Serdev mailing list serdev@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev
Serdev mailing list serdev@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev
Greger V. Teigre writes:
Let's try to make 0.9.x documentation as complete as possible nowleading up to the release!!
nathelper README doesn't describe all nat_uac_test modes. tm module README seems to lack description of several exported functions.
these both are example of bad iptel.org policy. no new features should be allowed to be added/changed in the code unless also the documentation is updated.
-- juha
Excellent! I trust you submit these to http://bugs.sip-router.org ?! (there is a separate component called DOCUMENTATION) g-)
Juha Heinanen wrote:
Greger V. Teigre writes:
Let's try to make 0.9.x documentation as complete as possible nowleading up to the release!!
nathelper README doesn't describe all nat_uac_test modes. tm module README seems to lack description of several exported functions.
these both are example of bad iptel.org policy. no new features should be allowed to be added/changed in the code unless also the documentation is updated.
-- juha
Greger V. Teigre writes:
Excellent! I trust you submit these to http://bugs.sip-router.org ?! (there is a separate component called DOCUMENTATION)
i have username for iptel cvs. the same should be useable also for registering bugs.
-- juha
On 21-06-2005 09:35, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Greger V. Teigre writes:
Excellent! I trust you submit these to http://bugs.sip-router.org ?! (there is a separate component called DOCUMENTATION)
i have username for iptel cvs. the same should be useable also for registering bugs.
Why don't you register it here:
http://bugs.sip-router.org/secure/Signup!default.jspa
We do not know passwords that developers use to access cvs and are not able to retrive them, given that they are hashed in /etc/passwd.
I can take a look if it would be possible to configure the bug tracking system to use unix authentication so that everyone who has access to cvs would automatically gain access to the bug tracker, but I do not think that this is an important issue at the moment, given that anyone can register in the bug tracker.
Jan.
On 21-06-2005 09:20, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Greger V. Teigre writes:
Let's try to make 0.9.x documentation as complete as possible nowleading up to the release!!
nathelper README doesn't describe all nat_uac_test modes. tm module README seems to lack description of several exported functions.
these both are example of bad iptel.org policy. no new features should be allowed to be added/changed in the code unless also the documentation is updated.
Are you suggesting that commits should be rejected if they do not update documentation as well ? What is better, having undocumented code or having no code ?
Jan.
Jan Janak wrote:
On 21-06-2005 09:20, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Greger V. Teigre writes:
Let's try to make 0.9.x documentation as complete as possible nowleading up to the release!!
nathelper README doesn't describe all nat_uac_test modes. tm module README seems to lack description of several exported functions.
these both are example of bad iptel.org policy. no new features should be allowed to be added/changed in the code unless also the documentation is updated.
Are you suggesting that commits should be rejected if they do not update documentation as well ? What is better, having undocumented code or having no code ?
From the user's point of view there is no big difference: You can't use new features if you do not know that they exist - except you are also subscribed to the CVS-commits ;-)
regards, klaus
Do you prefer to have streets and avenues with out signals?
Remember most of the members of this community and mebers list we are users.
Regards
Alberto Cruz Jan Janak wrote:
On 21-06-2005 09:20, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Greger V. Teigre writes:
Let's try to make 0.9.x documentation as complete as possible nowleading up to the release!!
nathelper README doesn't describe all nat_uac_test modes. tm module README seems to lack description of several exported functions.
these both are example of bad iptel.org policy. no new features should be allowed to be added/changed in the code unless also the documentation is updated.
Are you suggesting that commits should be rejected if they do not update documentation as well ? What is better, having undocumented code or having no code ?
Jan.
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Hi All.
I'll toss in my US$0.02 worth.
IMHO, it is better to have _minmal_ documented code rather than no code. My reasoning is simple. Full documentation will really delay the stable release of 0.9.0 and for the "users" there are other documentation projects such as http://onsip.org/ which provide very good tutorials.
By the time a user gets through the onsip.org http://onsip.orgdocumentation he/she would hopefully be acclimated to the structure of SER and be able to dig in to the source when looking for something.
I'm not suggesting that the SER sources should remain undocumented. I strongly agree that the README files should be updated, but the fact of the matter is that the README files are only the "tip of the iceberg" so to speak when it comes to really using SER. For example, the README files generally do not describe when or where to use a particular function.
Full documentation for SER usage is probably better off on a site like onsip.org http://onsip.org where the focus is only on "how do I get SER to ..."
So I guess the point I'm really trying to make is that the README files should probably be updated with _minimal_ notes of missing or deprecated functions, but complete documentation on using SER should not be a requirement to promoting SER 0.9.0 to stable.
Regards, Paul
On 6/21/05, Alberto Cruz acruz@tekbrain.com wrote:
Do you prefer to have streets and avenues with out signals?
Remember most of the members of this community and mebers list we are users.
Regards
Alberto Cruz Jan Janak wrote:
On 21-06-2005 09:20, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Greger V. Teigre writes:
Let's try to make 0.9.x documentation as complete as possible nowleading up to the release!!
nathelper README doesn't describe all nat_uac_test modes. tm module README seems to lack description of several exported functions.
these both are example of bad iptel.org http://iptel.org policy. no new features should be allowed to be added/changed in the code unless also the documentation is updated.
Are you suggesting that commits should be rejected if they do not update documentation as well ? What is better, having undocumented code or having no code ?
Jan.
Serusers mailing listserusers@lists.iptel.orghttp://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Jan Janak writes:
Are you suggesting that commits should be rejected if they do not update documentation as well ? What is better, having undocumented code or having no code ?
yes, i'm suggesting that no commit should be accepted without corresponding documentation. otherwise the new features become secrets of the chosen few who have read the code and understand how to use them. the rest will fill the mailing list with questions.
-- juha
I agree with Juha. I would even take it further: No commit should be done without referencing the corresponding issue the commit is related to, i.e. issues should drive development, not the individual developer's to-do list. Without these two rules, we have no transparancy on what is going in development (or as today: the maintainer's head) and no transparancy on what did go in development (or today: no documentation).
These are just natural consequences when a project has multiple developers. Also, this will help out in communication across developers. g-)
Juha Heinanen wrote:
Jan Janak writes:
Are you suggesting that commits should be rejected if they do not update documentation as well ? What is better, having undocumented code or having no code ?
yes, i'm suggesting that no commit should be accepted without corresponding documentation. otherwise the new features become secrets of the chosen few who have read the code and understand how to use them. the rest will fill the mailing list with questions.
-- juha
On 21-06-2005 08:07, Greger V. Teigre wrote:
As far I can see (using a filter on Matches versions: 0.9.3), there are no issues. The same search, but using HEAD, gives me 22 issues. Jan stated that everything he is aware of has been registered at http://bugs.sip-router.org/.
I fixed the last issue in 0.9.x that I was aware of last week. If nobody else has any open bugs then we can upload tarballs and packages.
Jan.
I would like to make a call for submissions on http://bugs.sip-router.org/ of lacking documentation that you either have identified and started on (ref. earlier calls for documentation) or just identified (so that others may pick up the documentation effort). Let's try to make 0.9.x documentation as complete as possible now leading up to the release!! g-)
Klaus Darilion wrote:
maybe on the bugtracker?
Juha Heinanen wrote:
is there somewhere a list of rel_0_9_0 release critical bugs/missing things? it would be high time to release the next stable version and if the lists exists, perhaps people could help to fix the loose ends. -- juha
Serdev mailing list serdev@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev
Serdev mailing list serdev@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Jan Janak wrote:
On 21-06-2005 08:07, Greger V. Teigre wrote:
As far I can see (using a filter on Matches versions: 0.9.3), there are no issues. The same search, but using HEAD, gives me 22 issues. Jan stated that everything he is aware of has been registered at http://bugs.sip-router.org/.
I fixed the last issue in 0.9.x that I was aware of last week. If nobody else has any open bugs then we can upload tarballs and packages.
What about Maxim's stateful authentication patch?
regards, klaus
-
Alberto Cruz -
Greger V. Teigre -
Jan Janak -
Java Rockx -
Juha Heinanen -
Klaus Darilion