12 Jul
2006
12 Jul
'06
4:17 p.m.
Is anyone working on a document to show the steps required to upgrade from SER
0.9.x to SER 0.10.x? There appear to be MASSIVE changes to the structure of
the DB as well as to the way the config is handled in some areas. Serctl has
vanished and been replaced with three programs (a bit of a step backward
there, but I'm assuming they'll be reintegrated into one solid command at some
point), acc has vanished and been replaced with three modules (another step
backward in usability/readability, but I'm sure there was a reason for it
somewhere), etc.
It would be nice if all the changes one would have to make in order to go from
a 0.9.x release to a 0.10.x release were listed somewhere (in one place,
please... not in three separate files ;) ).
Is this being worked on, or is this something we should start to compile for
the good of those who come after? :)
N.
12 Jul
12 Jul
8:40 p.m.
New subject: call for documentation contribution (was Re: [Serusers] Upgrade documentation
That's true. There have been massive changes, for good reasons, and these are
by now unfortunately undocumented. I'm looking forward to folks willing to
contribute to documentation effort. If there are volunteers, please approach
me.
There was recently a book on Asterisk and SER0.9, whose authors we tried to find
in the hope they may allocate time to this effort so far not succesfully.
If you are on the list, please contact me.
-jiri
At 15:17 12/07/2006, sip wrote:
Is anyone working on a document to show the steps
required to upgrade from SER
0.9.x to SER 0.10.x? There appear to be MASSIVE changes to the structure of
the DB as well as to the way the config is handled in some areas. Serctl has
vanished and been replaced with three programs (a bit of a step backward
there, but I'm assuming they'll be reintegrated into one solid command at some
point), acc has vanished and been replaced with three modules (another step
backward in usability/readability, but I'm sure there was a reason for it
somewhere), etc.
It would be nice if all the changes one would have to make in order to go from
a 0.9.x release to a 0.10.x release were listed somewhere (in one place,
please... not in three separate files ;) ).
Is this being worked on, or is this something we should start to compile for
the good of those who come after? :)
N.
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
10:39 p.m.
New subject: call for documentation contribution (was Re: [Serusers] Upgrade documentation
Cool. I think, at least in the meantime, it might be a good idea to break
this up into sections to make it easier to manage.
Things that have changed since 0.9.x:
-Requirements? (Doesn't look like it for the basic stuff, but I imagine
someone might want to say something about possible additional requirements
that might be needed for presence, should it become more integrated (Vaclav?))
-Config file syntax changes (changes in the config that would have to be made
to make a 0.9.x config most likely work on a 0.10.x server)
-Config file syntax additions (any of the new stuff... like the @variables and
how they're used and how they CAN be used)
-DB changes (again, things that would have to be changed from a 0.9.x config
to a 0.10.x config)
-DB additions (anything that's additional in the DB that wouldn't fit into the
above category)
-Command-line changes (changes to the command-line tools and how they work)
-Module changes (like how one would replace an acc module that's logging to
radius, /var/log/messages, AND the db simultaneously with the new modules...
or even if they can all be used in tandem, etc, etc... any new modules that
exist, any old modules that have been deprecated and their replacements if any).
-Module API changes(this is a VERY important section, but might be the most
complex... things that have changed in the actual coding of modules since the
0.9.x code. I know that I, for one, have several custom modules to handle one
thing or another, and it would be nice to know how to migrate it to the new
format)
-Misc changes (anything that doesn't fit into the above categories, or might,
but no one knows where to put it).
Do we need a Wiki of some sort to track these changes? It might help to have
one available so that everyone can fill things out as they run into issues
(since we all have our own special configs and issues and modules).
N.
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:40:37 +0200, Jiri Kuthan wrote
That's true. There have been massive changes, for
good reasons, and
these are by now unfortunately undocumented. I'm looking forward to
folks willing to contribute to documentation effort. If there are
volunteers, please approach me.
There was recently a book on Asterisk and SER0.9, whose authors we
tried to find in the hope they may allocate time to this effort so
far not succesfully. If you are on the list, please contact me.
-jiri
At 15:17 12/07/2006, sip wrote:
Is anyone working on a document to show the steps
required to upgrade from SER
0.9.x to SER 0.10.x? There appear to be MASSIVE changes to the structure of
the DB as well as to the way the config is handled in some areas. Serctl has
vanished and been replaced with three programs (a bit of a step backward
there, but I'm assuming they'll be reintegrated into one solid command at some
point), acc has vanished and been replaced with three modules (another step
backward in usability/readability, but I'm sure there was a reason for it
somewhere), etc.
It would be nice if all the changes one would have to make in order to go from
a 0.9.x release to a 0.10.x release were listed somewhere (in one place,
please... not in three separate files ;) ).
Is this being worked on, or is this something we should start to compile for
the good of those who come after? :)
N.
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ 
14 Jul
14 Jul
12:54 p.m.
New subject: call for documentation contribution (was Re: [Serusers] Upgrade documentation
Hi,
Good list :-) We have plans for upgrading the ONsip.org config files to
SER head. The ONsip.org test server has head running right now. However,
we have been stalled a bit as we are working on a new web site presence
for SER (at iptel.org). This new site will have excellent possibilities
for small and large contributions. We are also planning to remove the
module documentation from the code repository and make the web version
authoritative.
g-)
sip wrote:
Cool. I think, at least in the meantime, it might be
a good idea to break
this up into sections to make it easier to manage.
Things that have changed since 0.9.x:
-Requirements? (Doesn't look like it for the basic stuff, but I imagine
someone might want to say something about possible additional requirements
that might be needed for presence, should it become more integrated (Vaclav?))
-Config file syntax changes (changes in the config that would have to be made
to make a 0.9.x config most likely work on a 0.10.x server)
-Config file syntax additions (any of the new stuff... like the @variables and
how they're used and how they CAN be used)
-DB changes (again, things that would have to be changed from a 0.9.x config
to a 0.10.x config)
-DB additions (anything that's additional in the DB that wouldn't fit into the
above category)
-Command-line changes (changes to the command-line tools and how they work)
-Module changes (like how one would replace an acc module that's logging to
radius, /var/log/messages, AND the db simultaneously with the new modules...
or even if they can all be used in tandem, etc, etc... any new modules that
exist, any old modules that have been deprecated and their replacements if any).
-Module API changes(this is a VERY important section, but might be the most
complex... things that have changed in the actual coding of modules since the
0.9.x code. I know that I, for one, have several custom modules to handle one
thing or another, and it would be nice to know how to migrate it to the new
format)
-Misc changes (anything that doesn't fit into the above categories, or might,
but no one knows where to put it).
Do we need a Wiki of some sort to track these changes? It might help to have
one available so that everyone can fill things out as they run into issues
(since we all have our own special configs and issues and modules).
N.
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:40:37 +0200, Jiri Kuthan wrote
That's true. There have been massive changes,
for good reasons, and
these are by now unfortunately undocumented. I'm looking forward to
folks willing to contribute to documentation effort. If there are
volunteers, please approach me.
There was recently a book on Asterisk and SER0.9, whose authors we
tried to find in the hope they may allocate time to this effort so
far not succesfully. If you are on the list, please contact me.
-jiri
At 15:17 12/07/2006, sip wrote:
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Is anyone working on a document to show the steps
required to upgrade from SER
0.9.x to SER 0.10.x? There appear to be MASSIVE changes to the structure of
the DB as well as to the way the config is handled in some areas. Serctl has
vanished and been replaced with three programs (a bit of a step backward
there, but I'm assuming they'll be reintegrated into one solid command at some
point), acc has vanished and been replaced with three modules (another step
backward in usability/readability, but I'm sure there was a reason for it
somewhere), etc.
It would be nice if all the changes one would have to make in order to go from
a 0.9.x release to a 0.10.x release were listed somewhere (in one place,
please... not in three separate files ;) ).
Is this being worked on, or is this something we should start to compile for
the good of those who come after? :)
N.
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
--
Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
6706
days inactive
6708
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Greger V. Teigre -
Jiri Kuthan -
sip