On 1/27/06, tim panton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 26 Jan 2006, at 12:22, Rich Adamson wrote: > > > However, in addition to the magic, anyone moving complete new code into > a high visibility production network without "first" testing it is nuts. > > > > I agree with you, but in this case, we test 1.2 stable, but not test in > "time machine" mode, i mean moving the system clock forward and > backward. I thing this bug take many people by Surprise. > > Obviously, it already did. Luckily out of all deployed systems, there were > not that many implementors that upgraded to v1.2.2 within the couple of > days since it was released. > > (Puts head above parapet and gets ready to be 'corrected'...) > > These sorts of time dependent bugs are almost impossible to find in > testing - this one only occurs every 48 days, so you'd have to have a > 7 week beta period to have tested it. And this is a 'simple' one > compared to leap seconds or whatever. > > If I read the patch right this was a bug where a signed 32bit quantity was > treated as if it were unsigned (or the other was around). > > You'll only catch this kind of thing with lint, and/or strict use of > macros/functions to do time comparisons. > > For the first time in 10 years I understand why all integer types in Java > are signed, which is ironic, I've just been grumbling about all those > 64 bit ints I need to represent IAX 32bit (unsigned) timestamps! > > (P.S. I love the hint that Mark contributed to the fix over a 9600baud > GPRS connection) >
Mark has certainly had a busy week this week. In addition to the bug fix, he's also been on both coasts to do keynotes at the ITExpo sure in FL and then San Fran for O'Reilly's ETel. -- Bird's The Word Technologies, Inc. http://www.btwtech.com/ _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
