This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Holger Freyther holger at freyther.de> On 15 Jun 2015, at 21:01, Alexander Chemeris <alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> wrote: Good Morning Alexander, > I agree that transactional functionality would be nice and I had been thinking about this. But it's a big change which should be well planned and requires considerable effort to go through all commands and split configuration from application. One issue is that we'll need to create "shadow" registers for the non applied settings. E.g. in case of power control, the setting was actually applied at the BSC part of the control (it was using the setting variable directly), but was not propagated to the BTS party, which was really confusing from a user perspective. > > In short - I agree that such feature would be nice, but I don't think this is a showstopper for this patch, because it just makes things more consistent. we will not be able to find an agreement here. The current behavior is not consistent (we have attributes that apply immediately, after a BTS restart or even only after the restart of the system). Moving one VTY command from one class to another doesn’t improve the consistency in any way. The same inconsistency remains in the system, we face the same issue in documenting the inconsistencies. So when/how do we want to apply changes? Should all changes be abpplied after an “apply” command? How is it done by other vendors that offer a VTY like interface? holger