Jared Smith wrote: > Wouldn't this be better served as an argument to the Answer() > application? We already have one argument for a delay *before* > answering the channel, so why not have one for a delay *after* > answering the channel. Now the commit log says "when a channel gets > automatically answered by an application", so does this take place > only if you don't call the Answer() application and leave it up to > another application to automagicially answer the channel?
See my other reply... I'm already changing it to be that way. Note that the Answer() argument was also mis-documented; it was already a post-answer delay, and I've updated all three branches to reflect that. _______________________________________________ --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
