[Users] "detached" timer

Jiri Kuthan jiri at iptel.org
Tue Apr 10 16:10:29 CEST 2007

At 14:46 05/04/2007, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>the spread and evolution of openser project proves contrary -- knowing what was then and where openser got so far, I can say that the fork was a good thing. You should accept the open source environment where the code can be forked at any moment, even if you like it or not. If you personally don't like it, doesn't mean it is something bad.

My point is not about where it is, but where it could have been if the split-work hasn't been
dilluting the result. 

>>Not that there would not be good progress -- the 1.2.0 release list seems to have
>>great deal of inspiration from ottendorf, it is just I don't understand why some
>>folks are upset about fixing TM.
>I'm afraid you try to spread unrealistic stories -- since you started the activity on openser mailing lists there was no constructive conversation from your side, only accuses and claims to the project and folks here. Really, you are not force to use openser or participate to mailing lists if you dislike it.
>OpenSER had all the time the roadmap public (btw, osas pointed we should upgrade it :-) ), it happened to be changed when external contributions popped up, or was strong demand of some feature. When you do such statements, please list some of those great things, and we will let you know when it started and how evolved (of course, you can dig on mailing lists and forums if you want quick answer). I could say that is the opposite direction, I may have quite strong arguments, but I don't, because will end in political discussions, without a good progressive result, so, there was no inspiration from openser to ser.

This is quite beyond my point. Actually I think it is a good thing if the gap is
being narrowed (whatever the process for that might have been, eventually seeing the "diff"
getting shorter is the positive point). The real question is then how to effectively 
stimulate this trend.

>Regarding porting tm/timers or what so ever, we appreciate and welcome any contribution to OpenSER, it will be reviewed and accepted if brings something new or good. Not to invest unnecessary efforts in you side, ser's tm is very likely to be rejected as it is now, because its known big vulnerability to DoS. OpenSER tm module has very good performances and lot of features which are not in ser.

Regretfully I have not been very succesful in locating the backtraces which are IMO showing
specifically what flies apart and to code which to my knowledge had been copied'and'pasted.
I still have some thin hope to locate those, but it will take time and is uncertain.


Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/

More information about the Users mailing list