Why the bug tracking page in a different website. Why not under iptel.org ?
Mohammad
Original Message: ----------------- From: Greger V. Teigre greger@teigre.com Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:03:21 +0200 To: Salvatore.Giudice@FMR.COM, serdev@iptel.org, serusers@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@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
_______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@iptel.org http://mail.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
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@imap.1and1.com" m36828253-1@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@teigre.com Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:03:21 +0200 To: Salvatore.Giudice@FMR.COM, serdev@lists.iptel.org, serusers@lists.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@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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.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
The primary reason is that change in iptel.org zone takes a week.
Jan.
On 15-06-2005 15:16, m36828253-1@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@teigre.com Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:03:21 +0200 To: Salvatore.Giudice@FMR.COM, serdev@lists.iptel.org, serusers@lists.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@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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Serdev mailing list serdev@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev
Also, try following the link: http://sip-router.org/... :-) g-)
Jan Janak wrote:
The primary reason is that change in iptel.org zone takes a week.
Jan.
On 15-06-2005 15:16, m36828253-1@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@teigre.com Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:03:21 +0200 To: Salvatore.Giudice@FMR.COM, serdev@lists.iptel.org, serusers@lists.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@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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Serdev mailing list serdev@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev
-
Greger V. Teigre -
Jan Janak -
Kristin Galway -
m36828253-1＠imap.1and1.com