[Openvpn-devel] is there an official bug reporting mechanism?

[Jason Haar]

Hi there

I think I've found bugs in openvpn (nobind doesn't work with UDP) and
the openvpnserv.exe for Windows (sometimes doesn't fully close down -
meaning you can't restart openvpn.exe), is there an official channel for
reporting bugs?

Thanks

-- 
Cheers

Jason Haar
Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd.
Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
PGP Fingerprint: 7A2E 0407 C9A6 CAF6 2B9F 8422 C063 5EBB FE1D 66D1

Re: [Openvpn-devel] Summary of the IRC meeting (28th Jan 2010)

[Peter Stuge]

Samuli Seppänen wrote:
> > OpenID
> 
> I'm somewhat familiar with OpenID but I need to take another look
> at it. SF.net supports it, so the same OpenID could be used for the
> SF.net "openvpn" project (should we make use of it) as well as the
> community site Trac instance.

SF can be an OpenID provider when that is enabled (I belive each user
needs to do so), but I'm not sure if SF accepts external OpenID
providers. The Trac auth plugin would have no problem accepting
logins with SF OpenIDs.


//Peter

Re: [Openvpn-devel] New development process ready

[Samuli Seppänen]

Hi Eric,

I think #openvpn should provide the end-user support for both "stable"
and "testing". If a user is having a problem which can't be solved in
#openvpn and which may be a bug, he can be redirected to #openvpn-devel.
I fear that otherwise - if tons of (new) people start using "testing" -
the devel channel would get flooded with problems caused by simple
configuration mistakes. So the devel channel would mainly serve
developers, including those working in the "testing" trees. Meetings
could be held in the #openvpn-discussion channel - not all of the
meetings have been/will be purely developer-oriented.

What do you think?
> Also, in support of the testing tree, could we make #openvpn-devel the 
> 'official' IRC channel on freenode?
>
> Eric
>   

Re: [Openvpn-devel] Summary of the IRC meeting (28th Jan 2010)

[Samuli Seppänen]

> On Jan 31, 2010, at 21:35:01, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
>
>   
>> On 01/31/2010 11:13:06 AM, Eric F Crist wrote:
>> 
>>> I do not feel the forums and mailing list need to be synchronized. 
>>> They are two different mediums, and should be treated as such. 
>>>   
>> I disagree.  (Although this has no impact on any operational decision
>> because so far as I know there's no good choice of software.
>> Maybe mailman 3.0 will someday deliver.)
>>
>> Forms and archived mailing lists are the exact same medium.  They may 
>> happen to have different interfaces for input and output, but the 
>> interfaces are in no way mutually exclusive.  The end result is a 
>> threaded archive viewable on the web in either case.
>>
>> If you've software that allows input via web page and/or email
>> and output via web interface and/or email is it a forum or a mailing
>> list?  It's both.  My point being it's then really silly to have
>> 2 different archives depending on whether the data went in or out via
>> an email or a web page.
>>
>> There should be only one place to look for archived answers no
>> matter how the questions are asked and answers supplied.  To
>> do otherwise leads to duplication of effort and difficulty in
>> searching.
>> 
>
> I need to correct myself.  The interface is where the userbase is split, not 
> the backend.  I've found a supported plugin for vBulletin which allows the 
> mailing list and forum to act as a single repository of knowledge.  It uses 
> mailman on the backend, and allows for posts to the forum to be sent and 
> properly threaded on the mailing list, and vice-versa.  vBulletin also has 
> good RSS support, so we can pipe that into RSS with the channel bot.
>
> This plugin, I think, would suit the needs here perfectly.  This week I'm 
> going to look into it further and do some testing.  If you (or anyone else) 
> has additional input, please let me know.  The only question in my mind is 
> how things such as polls and the like would be relayed on the mailing lists, 
> if at all.  There are some things that would likely not make it to the list, 
> but we can work with those as we go.
>
> ---
> Eric Crist
>
>   
I agree with Eric. I think we should have forums _and_ mailinglists, as
there's a clear demand for both. They should just be kept in sync so
that the whole content is easily searchable. The vBulletin plugin which
Eric sounds like a nice solution.

-- 
Samuli Seppänen
Community Manager
OpenVPN Technologies, Inc

irc freenode net: mattock

Re: [Openvpn-devel] Summary of the IRC meeting (28th Jan 2010)

[Peter Stuge]

Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> > I do not feel the forums and mailing list need to be synchronized.
> > They are two different mediums, and should be treated as such.
> 
> I disagree.

I would also like to unify forums and mailing lists, for purely
egotistical reasons - I really dislike the web.

My idea for this since many years is to have an IMAP interface to
forum databases, so that an email program can be used to access the
forum contents. It never progressed far beyond the idea stage though,
except maybe for small involvement with the BincIMAP project.
BincIMAP has backend abstraction so a SQL backend should be kindof
straightforward.

I believe this would help usability tremendously - I think a lot more
users would be able to interface with forums if they had a decent
interface without so much clutter.


//Peter

Re: [Openvpn-devel] Summary of the IRC meeting (28th Jan 2010)

[Karl O. Pinc]

On 01/31/2010 11:13:06 AM, Eric F Crist wrote:
> I do not feel the forums and mailing list need to be synchronized. 
> They are two different mediums, and should be treated as such. 

I disagree.  (Although this has no impact on any operational decision
because so far as I know there's no good choice of software.
Maybe mailman 3.0 will someday deliver.)

Forms and archived mailing lists are the exact same medium.  They may 
happen to have different interfaces for input and output, but the 
interfaces are in no way mutually exclusive.  The end result is a 
threaded archive viewable on the web in either case.

If you've software that allows input via web page and/or email
and output via web interface and/or email is it a forum or a mailing
list?  It's both.  My point being it's then really silly to have
2 different archives depending on whether the data went in or out via
an email or a web page.

There should be only one place to look for archived answers no
matter how the questions are asked and answers supplied.  To
do otherwise leads to duplication of effort and difficulty in
searching.

Regards,

Karl 
Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
 -- Robert A. Heinlein

Re: [Openvpn-devel] Summary of the IRC meeting (28th Jan 2010)

[Eric F Crist]

On Jan 31, 2010, at 11:13:06, Eric F Crist wrote:

> On Jan 31, 2010, at 09:39:07, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> 
>> Well,
>> I can probably speak on my behalf...
>> I won't use forums, so no help from me if traffic is diverted into forums.
>> 
>> Alon.
> 
> Understandable, but I don't recall anyone basing the forums solely on your 
> support.  There is no reason 'not' to do something simply due to a few users' 
> lack of interest in a particular venue.  The fact of the matter is there are 
> forum users, mailing list users, and IRC users.  It is foolish to omit one 
> group or another.
> 
> While it's hard to filter out, the forums last year, the first year of 
> operation, received ~330,000 page views from 13,833 unique IP addresses.  
> This year (not quite one month), it has received ~38,000 page views from 
> 2,796 unique IP addresses.  I've eliminated the largest viewers with obscene 
> view counts, as they are likely bots.  The forum currently has 436 posts in 
> 140 topics, none of those being spam, as it is a moderated forum.  There are 
> 126 users with one post, 56 of which have 2 or more.
> 
> The openvpn-users mailing list had 3,349 posts in about 800 threads (quick 
> sample).  In contract, the first year of operation of the mailing list 
> received 334 posts with a sharp increase near the end of the second year.  
> The forum is currently on pace to at least match that level of traffic, 
> possibly exceed it.
> 
> I do not feel the forums and mailing list need to be synchronized.  They are 
> two different mediums, and should be treated as such.  Certain bits of data 
> can be shared, as forum entries have been mentioned on the mailing list and 
> mailing list messages/threads have been mentioned on the forum.
> 
> Just my 2¢ worth.

I did just find this for vBulletin.  It doesn't support vBulletin 4, but we 
could probably update it, if it isn't being worked on already: 
http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=151222

---
Eric Crist

Re: [Openvpn-devel] Summary of the IRC meeting (28th Jan 2010)

[Peter Stuge]

Samuli Seppänen wrote:
> Decided to start with a single Trac-based site for the whole
> community rather than have separate user/developer sites.

I think this is a good way to get some content going, even if it
turns out that the solution is inadequate sometime in the future.


> Discussed community site spam prevention in some length:
> 
> * There is an anti-spam plugin for Trac (see below)
> * A proper user registration process needs to be chosen - not too
>   bureaucratical but not too automated, either

In this context I'd like to suggest accepting OpenID login in Trac.

When I first learned about OpenID I was very sceptical, but now that
I have implemented it for one Trac I actually really like it.

For those not yet familiar with OpenID, the idea is to let a web site
(really any web site) provide authentication service for your users.
OpenID specifies the API used between service (Trac) and
authenticator (other web site) and this way, users only need to log
in at one place.

This sounds like a gaping hole, but in combination with email address
verification before allowing write access in Trac it is pretty
efficient - and convenient.

Many different web sites are OpenID providers, and there are various
packages available for setting up your own OpenID provider on a URL
that you control.

To log in, you give the URL to that OpenID provider (which can be any
web page, OpenID provider info can be added in meta tags) and then
you log in over there, and finally Trac checks with $overthere that
you are logged in.

I think the email address verification part is important.


http://bitbucket.org/Dalius/authopenid-plugin/

(I have an ebuild in my overlay at http://stuge.se/overlay.txt)


Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Trac is promises to provide all but provides none, I really don't
> know which project you managed with Trac, but without ticket
> dependencies

There's a plugin for it:

http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/MasterTicketsPlugin


> and without proper CC lists

Another plugin:

http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/TracNotification


> and workflow it is difficult to manage a real project.

Hm - please expand on what you mean by workflow?


> 2. ViewVC/ViewGIT/Whatever - Browse code.

I agree that e.g. git-web is much nicer than Trac's source viewer but
again it's nice to have something integrated.


//Peter