---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3698/#review12430
---
Ship it!
LGTM.
/trunk/pbx/pbx_realtime.c
MJ and Oej wrote:
I did not add that deprecation and propably missed it being done. I
think it's wrong until we have a solution
for auth user. We can separate them - but that means some code change.
I vote NO for removing this until we have solved the issues.
I'm not sure how
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3698/#review12431
---
Ship it!
/trunk/UPGRADE.txt
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3689/#review12429
---
I did not look at any of chan_jingle, chan_h323, or
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3700/
---
Review request for Asterisk Developers.
Repository: Asterisk
Related issue:
https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-23142
In the big jitterbuffer patch in 2006 ther was code that sets a flag on a
AST_FRAME
that it contains time stamp information. This is set on all incoming RTP audio
frames.
When sending RTP we reset the timestamp to the one
On 02 Jul 2014, at 11:58, Olle E. Johansson o...@edvina.net wrote:
Related issue:
https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-23142
In the big jitterbuffer patch in 2006 ther was code that sets a flag on a
AST_FRAME
that it contains time stamp information. This is set on all
On July 2, 2014, 2:55 a.m., Corey Farrell wrote:
/team/group/media_formats-reviewed-trunk/include/asterisk/frame.h, lines
180-181
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3689/diff/1/?file=61986#file61986line180
This looks like temporary code I was considering that should not be
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3157/#review12434
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Shaun Ruffell
On Jan. 26, 2014, 3:14
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3693/#review12436
---
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3693/
---
(Updated July 2, 2014, 9:50 a.m.)
Review request for Asterisk Developers.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3698/#review12437
---
/trunk/UPGRADE.txt
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3700/#review12438
---
Please put the ASTERISK issue in the bugs field so people can
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3700/
---
(Updated July 2, 2014, 3:44 p.m.)
Review request for Asterisk Developers.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3700/
---
(Updated July 2, 2014, 3:45 p.m.)
Review request for Asterisk Developers.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3704/
---
Review request for Asterisk Developers.
Bugs: ASTERISK-23984
I've been pulled up on almost every reviewboard entry I raised recently for
missing some piece of information. In each case, the relevant field has
indeed been missing, and I have felt like a bit of an idiot.
Today I discovered the cause... At least for the Linux Chrome browser.
If a field in a
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3704/#review12439
---
trunk/main/utils.c
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3703/
---
Review request for Asterisk Developers.
Bugs: ASTERISK-23957
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3704/
---
(Updated July 2, 2014, 4:37 p.m.)
Review request for Asterisk Developers.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3703/#review12440
---
I still need review the res_format_attr modules again,
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3691/#review12441
---
/branches/12/main/http.c
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3691/#review12442
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Matt Jordan
On July 1, 2014, 9:31
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3703/
---
(Updated July 2, 2014, 7:24 p.m.)
Review request for Asterisk Developers.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3703/#review12443
---
On July 2, 2014, 8:25 p.m., Corey Farrell wrote:
/team/group/media_formats-reviewed-trunk/include/asterisk/format.h, lines
51-60
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3703/diff/2/?file=62046#file62046line51
Every format_clone function is identical, except for the obvious
On July 2, 2014, 4:25 p.m., Corey Farrell wrote:
/team/group/media_formats-reviewed-trunk/include/asterisk/format.h, lines
51-60
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3703/diff/2/?file=62046#file62046line51
Every format_clone function is identical, except for the obvious
On July 1, 2014, 1:40 p.m., opticron wrote:
/asterisk/trunk/tests/pbx/manager_extensions/test-config.yaml, line 34
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3660/diff/4/?file=61097#file61097line34
This test doesn't seem to actually use the ActionIDs provided for the
defined commands.
On July 1, 2014, 1:40 p.m., opticron wrote:
/asterisk/trunk/tests/pbx/manager_extensions/ami_extension_control.py, line
40
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3660/diff/4/?file=61095#file61095line40
There is no need for a deep copy here since you don't touch the
original after
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3705/
---
Review request for Asterisk Developers.
Bugs: ASTERISK-21443
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3705/#review12449
---
Ship it!
Tested on my Grandstreams. Ship It!
- George
On July 2, 2014, 2:55 a.m., Corey Farrell wrote:
/team/group/media_formats-reviewed-trunk/main/astobj2_container.c, line 78
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3689/diff/1/?file=61989#file61989line78
I feel about this the same as I do the astobj2.c change. I think
merges from
On July 2, 2014, 2:55 a.m., Corey Farrell wrote:
/team/group/media_formats-reviewed-trunk/main/format_cap.c, lines 124-131
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3689/diff/1/?file=62001#file62001line124
I'm against duplicating code. I'd much rather this be moved to a
static
On July 2, 2014, 2:55 a.m., Corey Farrell wrote:
/team/group/media_formats-reviewed-trunk/main/format_cap.c, line 190
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3689/diff/1/?file=62001#file62001line190
Please S_OR for tag
Dropped since we're now just ao2_bumping it.
- Matt
On July 2, 2014, 3:55 a.m., Corey Farrell wrote:
/team/group/media_formats-reviewed-trunk/main/format_cap.c, line 190
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3689/diff/1/?file=62001#file62001line190
Please S_OR for tag
Matt Jordan wrote:
Dropped since we're now just ao2_bumping
On July 2, 2014, 2:55 a.m., Corey Farrell wrote:
/team/group/media_formats-reviewed-trunk/main/format_cap.c, line 190
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3689/diff/1/?file=62001#file62001line190
Please S_OR for tag
Matt Jordan wrote:
Dropped since we're now just ao2_bumping
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3689/
---
(Updated July 2, 2014, 6:22 p.m.)
Review request for Asterisk Developers.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3704/#review12454
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Matt Jordan
On July 2, 2014, 11:37
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3689/#review12456
---
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Corey Farrell
On July 2, 2014, 7:22
On July 2, 2014, 3:55 a.m., Corey Farrell wrote:
/team/group/media_formats-reviewed-trunk/main/format_cap.c, line 203
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3689/diff/1/?file=62001#file62001line203
I think this ref is leaked. You don't need a new reference, we already
have one from
40 matches
Mail list logo
