[Users] "detached" timer

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 03/31/07 09:14, Jiri Kuthan wrote:
> At 18:58 30/03/2007, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>   
>> jiri,
>>
>> let us be realistic !!!
>>
>> the policy (internal - about the code, targets and speed - and external - regarding contributions and user's wishes) was the key factor that made for us necessary to fork OpenSER.
>>     
>
> I am kind of not very certain that neither this was the factor not it was
> necessary. Actually I remember that folks with insight into this were
> (and I maintain quite by right) rather concerned. To refresh your memory
> I recommend you this thread:
> http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/2005-June/005120.html
>   

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.

>   
>> having this in mind, I see no fundamentals for your "split-work" idea (I'm afraid it is just a diversion/advertising thing)... The success of a piece of code relies on the unity and synchronization of the developers!
>>     
>
> I agree with the statement, which appears to be in contrast with the fork
> you apparently consider "necessary".
>
> 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.

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.

Daniel
 
> -jiri
>
>   
>> so, let us not bore the users from this list....they have better thinks to learn from it.
>>
>> regards
>> bogdan
>>
>>
>> Jiri Kuthan wrote:
>>     
>>> That's been also one of the flamed topics a while
>>> ago when proponents of SER suggested to split the work between openser and
>>> ser contributors so that SER works on the under-the-hood thigns and openser
>>> on the priotirized applications, to aovid contributors doing the same thing
>>> twice. Nevertheless, the interest appeared rather negative.
>>>
>>>  
>>>       
>> --
>> Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at openser.org
> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>