On 13 Mar 2014, at 21:42, Paul Belanger paul.belan...@polybeacon.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Dan Austin dan_aus...@phoenix.com wrote:
Matt wrote:
Not including this change does not seem to buy us anything, save for some
semblance of architectural purity. While I would love
In article CALLKq0S4TvEdbnCez_9soe9kEVbGyyO6_ru-_SJEHaxS=m0...@mail.gmail.com,
Paul Belanger paul.belan...@polybeacon.com wrote:
Sounds like the ulimit is at the default 1024. You need to increase it
because
Asterisk needs a lot of file descriptors.
This kind of question is better
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Tony Mountifield t...@softins.co.uk wrote:
In article
CALLKq0S4TvEdbnCez_9soe9kEVbGyyO6_ru-_SJEHaxS=m0...@mail.gmail.com,
Paul Belanger paul.belan...@polybeacon.com wrote:
Sounds like the ulimit is at the default 1024. You need to increase it
because
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Olle E. Johansson o...@edvina.net wrote:
On 13 Mar 2014, at 23:54, Richard Mudgett rmudg...@digium.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:07 PM, beiyan jin jinbeiyan2...@yahoo.com wrote:
In my load test calls,
1. each call has two parties connected by meetme
On 14 Mar 2014, at 14:13, Paul Belanger paul.belan...@polybeacon.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Olle E. Johansson o...@edvina.net wrote:
On 13 Mar 2014, at 23:54, Richard Mudgett rmudg...@digium.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:07 PM, beiyan jin jinbeiyan2...@yahoo.com
On 3/14/2014 2:41 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
On 13 Mar 2014, at 22:13, Sean Bright sean.bri...@gmail.com
mailto:sean.bri...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/2014 4:42 PM, Paul Belanger wrote:
+1 with Dan. Comments aside on DNS functionality (I have opinions but
sitting this one out). Any
On March 13, 2014, 11:13 p.m., Mark Michelson wrote:
One thing I notice about this test is that it is structured to call the
first extension, then when that finishes, call the second, then when that
finishes, call the third, etc.
Since no call depends on any of the previous call
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 02:40:22PM +0100, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
On 14 Mar 2014, at 14:13, Paul Belanger paul.belan...@polybeacon.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Olle E. Johansson o...@edvina.net wrote:
Don't forget that if you are using DAHDI there are dahdi file
On 14 Mar 2014, at 14:51, Sean Bright sean.bri...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/14/2014 2:41 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
On 13 Mar 2014, at 22:13, Sean Bright sean.bri...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/2014 4:42 PM, Paul Belanger wrote:
+1 with Dan. Comments aside on DNS functionality (I have
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Sean Bright sean.bri...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/14/2014 2:41 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
On 13 Mar 2014, at 22:13, Sean Bright sean.bri...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/13/2014 4:42 PM, Paul Belanger wrote:
+1 with Dan. Comments aside on DNS functionality (I have
On 3/14/2014 10:02 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
It would mean continuing to maintain Asterisk's pjproject fork until
those changes were (hopefully) accepted upstream, released, and then
waiting for the rpm/deb packages to catch up. Not to mention that
someone would actually have to _do_ all
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3348/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 9:24 a.m.)
Review request for Asterisk
On 14 Mar 2014, at 15:22, Sean Bright sean.bri...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/14/2014 10:02 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
It would mean continuing to maintain Asterisk's pjproject fork until those
changes were (hopefully) accepted upstream, released, and then waiting for
the rpm/deb packages to
On March 13, 2014, 11:13 p.m., Mark Michelson wrote:
One thing I notice about this test is that it is structured to call the
first extension, then when that finishes, call the second, then when that
finishes, call the third, etc.
Since no call depends on any of the previous call
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3329/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 2:43 p.m.)
Review request for Asterisk
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3335/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 3:15 p.m.)
Review request for Asterisk
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3335/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 3:29 p.m.)
Review request for Asterisk
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Shaun Ruffell sruff...@digium.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 02:40:22PM +0100, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
On 14 Mar 2014, at 14:13, Paul Belanger paul.belan...@polybeacon.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Olle E. Johansson o...@edvina.net wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3325/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 10:56 a.m.)
Status
--
This change has been
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Olle E. Johansson o...@edvina.net wrote:
On 14 Mar 2014, at 15:22, Sean Bright sean.bri...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/14/2014 10:02 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
It would mean continuing to maintain Asterisk's pjproject fork until those
changes were (hopefully)
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3340/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 11:05 a.m.)
Status
--
This change has been
On 14 Mar 2014, at 16:57, Paul Belanger paul.belan...@polybeacon.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Olle E. Johansson o...@edvina.net wrote:
On 14 Mar 2014, at 15:22, Sean Bright sean.bri...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/14/2014 10:02 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
It would mean
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3335/#review11203
---
If I have a similar fix for branch 12, should I upload a diff
On March 14, 2014, 11:03 a.m., zvision wrote:
If I have a similar fix for branch 12, should I upload a diff here or
should I create a new review request?
Is the patch the same?
If the patches are the same - minus any syntax changes that would occur during
a merge - then the person doing
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3324/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 11:26 a.m.)
Status
--
This change has been
On March 14, 2014, 4:03 p.m., zvision wrote:
If I have a similar fix for branch 12, should I upload a diff here or
should I create a new review request?
Matt Jordan wrote:
Is the patch the same?
If the patches are the same - minus any syntax changes that would occur
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3323/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 11:46 a.m.)
Status
--
This change has been
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3338/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 4:55 p.m.)
Review request for Asterisk
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3356/#review11206
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Scott Griepentrog
On March 14, 2014,
Matthew Jordan wrote:
snip
My problem is when I get arguments like it's there in PJIP so we
have to use it or we can't do anything because of PJSIP.
That's not my argument at all.
My argument is thus:
* PJSIP provides DNS resolution that far exceeds what is capable in
Asterisk today and
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Joshua Colp jc...@digium.com wrote:
Matthew Jordan wrote:
snip
My problem is when I get arguments like it's there in PJIP so we
have to use it or we can't do anything because of PJSIP.
That's not my argument at all.
My argument is thus:
* PJSIP
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3316/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 12:56 p.m.)
Status
--
This change has been
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3345/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 1:01 p.m.)
Status
--
This change has been
On March 13, 2014, 3:40 p.m., Corey Farrell wrote:
/branches/11/main/format.c, line 1119
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3209/diff/2/?file=55881#file55881line1119
I think this condition still needs !ast_undestroyed_channels(). If we
have undestroyed channels then
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3209/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 1:05 p.m.)
Status
--
This change has been
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3344/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 1:06 p.m.)
Status
--
This change has been
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3341/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 1:10 p.m.)
Status
--
This change has been
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3356/#review11208
---
/branches/1.8/main/callerid.c
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3209/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 1:35 p.m.)
Review request for Asterisk
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3338/#review11210
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- rmudgett
On March 14, 2014, 11:55
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3209/#review11211
---
Per a discussion on #asterisk-dev when this was discarded. I
On March 14, 2014, 6:18 p.m., rmudgett wrote:
/branches/1.8/main/callerid.c, line 624
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3356/diff/1/?file=56016#file56016line624
I would be surprised if this worked for calls that the checksum was not
zero.
I think the expression
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3357/
---
Review request for Asterisk Developers, Kevin Harwell and Matt Jordan.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3357/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 2:13 p.m.)
Review request for Asterisk
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3359/
---
Review request for Asterisk Developers.
Bugs: ASTERISK-23437
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3360/
---
Review request for Asterisk Developers.
Bugs: SWP-6748
On March 14, 2014, 1:18 p.m., rmudgett wrote:
/branches/1.8/main/callerid.c, line 624
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3356/diff/1/?file=56016#file56016line624
I would be surprised if this worked for calls that the checksum was not
zero.
I think the expression
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Matthew Jordan mjor...@digium.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Olle E. Johansson o...@edvina.net wrote:
It would mean continuing to maintain Asterisk's pjproject fork until those
changes were (hopefully) accepted upstream, released, and then waiting
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Olle E Johansson
reviewbo...@asterisk.orgwrote:
For every poorly designed bad feature I can think of I can find a large
number of Asterisk users that want it. It's simply not a good argument. We
create this software and need some sort of architecture when we
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3356/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 8:47 p.m.)
Review request for Asterisk
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3346/#review11214
---
One issue is that this patch is against a released version,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3356/#review11216
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- rmudgett
On March 14, 2014, 3:47 p.m.,
On March 14, 2014, 8:49 p.m., Tilghman Lesher wrote:
One issue is that this patch is against a released version, Asterisk 11,
and not against trunk. Since we've never previously supported NULL columns
as such, I think we'd want this change in trunk only.
Also, while you've changed
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3359/#review11221
---
/branches/12/rest-api/api-docs/bridges.json
On March 14, 2014, 4:50 p.m., Jonathan Rose wrote:
/branches/12/rest-api/api-docs/bridges.json, lines 87-89
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3359/diff/1/?file=56046#file56046line87
Supposing we keep adding more of these flags which are compatible with
each other, would that
On March 14, 2014, 4:50 p.m., Jonathan Rose wrote:
/branches/12/rest-api/api-docs/bridges.json, lines 87-89
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3359/diff/1/?file=56046#file56046line87
Supposing we keep adding more of these flags which are compatible with
each other, would that
On March 13, 2014, 3:52 p.m., Mark Michelson wrote:
Excellent job fixing the problem!
A note to whoever ends up committing this: This bug also exists in 1.8, 12,
and trunk. The 1.8 fix is exactly the same as this one. The 12 and trunk
fixes will be slightly different since the
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3326/
---
(Updated March 14, 2014, 10:01 p.m.)
Review request for Asterisk
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3331/#review11217
---
/trunk/apps/app_chanspy.c
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3360/#review11219
---
/branches/12/main/http.c
60 matches
Mail list logo
