Dear Alejandro,
I cannot point all the differences since I didn't have the chance to go
through the cvs manual in detail. In the main link for the User Manual you
have a "Stable" and "Development" version, with the "Stable" more recent
than the development.
I am thinking that "Development" should become "Latest CVS" and be updated
daily. I don't know what need there is for "old" "unstable" versions like
1.3.2, but if there is, a link to archives should be provided for old
documentation and sources.
Here is the list of differences that made me suspect discrepancies between
1.4.1 docs and CVS source. It is not exchaustive, since I stopped using it
once I discovered it. Mind you it was not easy or pleasant, since i had to
walk the source code with the debugger to resolve them.
1) Table 3.1. Core group variables. store-file. Bearebox when it starts
states that it is deprecated and to use store-location and store-type. OK,
so I used them, except that I didn't know what values to put for store-type
and bearerbox would give me an error: unknown "store-type" found. Thinking
that store-type variable was not supported, I even send an email to the
list. Had to figure it out from the sources.
2) To use ppg one has to specify smsbox-id. Once you specify smsbox-id you
have to specify smsbox-routing. I was getting error messages from bearerbox
like "Empty lists" etc. I had to find about smsbox-routing searching the
web. The CVS document needs also to be updated for that.
Table 6-7. smsbox-routing variables and example. Variables listed are
"smsc-ids" and "shortcut". When tried either one I would get "unsupported
variable "smsc-ids" in line...". I had again to go through the debugger to
make it work.
Bottom line. I didn't trust the documentation and didn't know of anything
better to use until I saw your email. With help from the list not very
dependable, I was thinking that I had to go through the sources every single
time. Not very pleasant prospect.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alejandro Guerrieri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Kannel Devel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: Patch formalization
Nikos,
Could you please point out what differences between 1.4.1
functionality and what manual's says did you find? There shouldn't be
any.
Regarding documentation for the CVS code, check on
http://www.kannel.org/download.shtml
, on section "Daily Snapshots". You'll find it there.
Regards,
Alejandro
El 24/11/2008, a las 04:42 a.m., Nikos Balkanas escribiΓ³:
Dear Alejandro,
Unfortunately not having docbook on my minimal server to generate the
latest User Manual, I opted for the HTML version in the site. A month ago
it was version 1.4.0, now it is renamed to 1.4.1. I believe it must be 4
yrs old. It is labeled as "more current" than the development. Not
finding anything else, I figured out that it was the latest.
It caused me a lot of grief. I tried to configure my box using the wrong
manual and had to resort to the source code many times over. Thanks for
pointing out the more current XML sources, it would be even nicer to get
the CVS manual out to the web (CVS, Stable, Development).
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alejandro Guerrieri"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Kannel Devel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: Patch formalization
Nikos,
The manual on the site is rendered to HTML, PDF and other formats from
a DocBook XML file, userguide.xml available on Kannel's source code.
Its content has been updated a lot of times.
Regards,
Alejandro Guerrieri
El 21/11/2008, a las 11:40 p.m., Nikos Balkanas escribiΓ³:
Hi Alej
I knew of only the HTML manual in the site, some ~8y old. Is there a
more recent version in XML?
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alejandro Guerrieri"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Stipe Tolj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: Patch formalization
Well, for the last few years, though maybe not a strict policy,
patches that modified the functionality were always suggested to have
a patch to the documentation XML as well.
I remember many patches that were put on hold until a proper
documentation patch was in place as well.
I also agree with that: Patches that modify user-interface, implement
new functionality or modify what the manual says in any way should
always include a patch for documentation.
The quality of the documentation being added is as important as the
patch itself IMO. Otherwise, we'd end having to check the source code
to figure out functionality, completely missing the point of having
documentation on the first place.
Regards,
Alejandro Guerrieri
El 21/11/2008, a las 10:08 p.m., Nikos Balkanas escribiΓ³:
Hi Stipe,
Very nicely done, especially the mantis system. But you are missing a
very important point. What I was driving at was that any submitted
patch should include a patch also of the manual. This is already in
HTML form and needs to be in the CVS, if not already.
It might take some time to setup mantis and the HTML, time that the
manual shouldn't have to wait. The manual can be implemented as soon
as a decision is reached.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stipe Tolj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: Patch formalization
Nikos Balkanas schrieb:
Hi,
I see a lot of patches going around on this group. I would like to
propose not to accept patches unless the relevant points are
updated in
the documentation. Furthermore I suggest that this should be a
distributed effort by each submitter. Too much I think has fallen
on the
shoulders of Alex trying to verify the code, to be able to maintain
the
documentation as well. Of course that would mean that documentation
needs to get in the CVS if not already there. And definitely this
applies only to new features/improvements, not to bug fixes.
This should facilitate also traffic in the group, inasmuch new
users,
like me, ask, over and over again, a lot of questions that are
either
outdated or nonexistent in the manual. A searchable mail list would
be
an improvement but could not substitute for a current manual.
Any comments?
agreed.
We have those 'formal guidelines' for [PATCH] submission, but I
guess it
wouldn't hurt to setup a simple .html page on the web site to make
them more
universal available.
Main policy items, IMO:
1. where to submit: devel@ list.
2. subject prefixing: [PATCH] my foobar patch that does
3. form of the patch: diff -u against CVS HEAD at 'gateway' root
4. form of source code: gateway/doc/CodingStyle should be obeyed
5. explanation of the patch: the more the reviewers "understand" the
easier to
review, and then vote. This enhances the patch post to commit cycle
6. all 'open' patches should be maintained in mantis (bug tracking
system) too,
at least as reference (i.e. via the mailing list Msg-Id) and the
patch itself
attachment. This helps us to maintain a single point of view to see
what pathces
are still pending.
7. any patch that introduces a behavior change needs votes, hence
consensus of
the group.
8. obvious bug fixes can be committed directly, but should be
noticeable to the
devel@ list with the same subject prefixing.
any more? or comments on these?
Stipe
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kölner Landstrasse 419
40589 D�sseldorf, NRW, Germany
tolj.org system architecture Kannel Software Foundation (KSF)
http://www.tolj.org/ http://www.kannel.org/
mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
