<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">This was excellent comment, I am surprised people did not answer too much.<br>I thought too that if we take ser codebase, openser documentation, all<br>contributed modules, and ser new configuration, and openser release<br>cycle, we will obtain best of best to our benefit.<br><br>Are people confused by subject line and is this why there is so little comments<br>for this important discussion? I changed the subject line. Hopefuly people who<br>can assess how difficult taking best-of-best would be will answer for me?<br><br>rr<br><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">----- Original Message ----<br>From: Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul <andrei@iptel.org><br>To: Klaus Darilion
<klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at><br>Cc: Jiri Kuthan <jiri@iptel.org>; serusers@iptel.org; Kim Il <kim_il_s@yahoo.com>; users@openser.org<br>Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 6:59:04 PM<br>Subject: Re: [Serusers] Re: Fw: [Users] TM : retransmission timers<br><br><div>On Nov 22, 2006 at 12:39, Klaus Darilion <klaus.mailinglists@pernau.at> wrote:<br>[...]<br>> > I'm being told that some other personal affiliated with<br>> >the same company more or less copied-n-pasted TCP code from the allegibly<br>> >discontinued SER to OpenSER.<br>> <br>> That's how open source works. I also copied lots of TLS extensions from <br>> ser to openser, and even extended it. You can also copy my extensions <br>> back to ser ... I would love to see it there :-)<br><br><br>I'm sure Jiri has no problem with copying code from ser to openser.<br>We will do the same with some openser modules and we already did with<br> some fixes.<br>The problem here
was that it was claimed that ser was dead but in the<br>same time new code commited in ser was added in openser (so the<br> openser history writer was not very well intended).<br><br><br>Speaking of copying/porting ser between ser and openser I have a few<br> requests:<br><br>1. If someone sends a fix for code taken from ser, which was not<br>modified in openser, please could you also bounce the message to the ser<br>maintainer of that piece of code? If you don't to whom, just send it to me<br>and I will make sure it reaches the right person.<br>I'm asking this because my favourite pass-time is not to scan openser<br>commitlogs for possible fixes to my code <br>(e.g.:<a target="_blank" href="http://openser.cvs.sourceforge.net/openser/sip-server/fastlock.h?r1=1.2&r2=1.3">http://openser.cvs.sourceforge.net/openser/sip-server/fastlock.h?r1=1.2&r2=1.3</a>)<br>and this will help me at a minimum effort for the openser developer<br>part. Of course I think this is true not
only for me, but also for other<br>ser and openser developers and I (and I'm sure anybody else on the ser<br>team) will return the favour.<br><br>2. Please give proper credits for the code you port from ser.<br>I've saw several times things like: Foo sees something was fixed in ser<br>or a new small feature was added and sends an email to the openser list<br>(specifying that the change/patch comes form ser).<br>The openser developers take the change, but the commit message says<br>something like: fix for XyZ, credits go to Foo (ser is not mentioned at<br>all).<br>It would not only be polite, but it will also help us to filter more<br>easily through the openser fixes.<br><br><br><br>Comming back to the openser - ser performance / features discussion, I<br>think the important part here is how we can improve both sers<br>(and you should take the test results as a bug report and maybe ask<br>yourself how did this go through testing, even old sers were faster<br> then 4000
cps). <br>If you think only of the users, then a combination of ser & openser will<br>be the best version. While we disagree (probably) in many respects, I<br>think there are at least a few clear advantages each version has.<br>For example openser has very impressive documentation (at this time <br>ser is very far away from this point of view) and lots of new modules.<br>ser has also its share of new modules (though I think not so many) and a<br>better/improved "infrastructure" (core, tm and lots of the "base"<br>modules - we are actively improving them). ser code tends to also be<br>more tested and stable (our release policies differ wildly).<br>I've tried looking at openser core & tm commits and I haven't seen any<br>significant changes (and this is not a flamewar attempt).<br>Now the question is why doesn't openser take the core, tm and a big<br>part of the modules from ser completely and concentrate then in adding<br>new modules (which you
seem to do anyway)? Does it make sense to<br>re-invent the wheel ?<br>Everybody (me too) suffers at least a little from the not-invented-here<br>syndrome, but if you think of the users and at how much of your time it<br>will save, it will make a lot of sense, even if some compromises would<br>be necessary.<br>I think the advantages will far outweigh the problems. Just think about<br>it, we can concentrate each other on our favourite stuff and we can<br>benefit much more easily from each other's work.<br><br><br>Andrei<br>_______________________________________________<br>Serusers mailing list<br>Serusers@lists.iptel.org<br><a target="_blank" href="http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers">http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers</a><br></div></div><br></div></div><br>
<hr size=1>Everyone is raving about <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=45083/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta">the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.</a></body></html>