Woof! wrote: > On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:46:02 -0400, Paul Mossman > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > How about I update the code comment to cite XECS-1706 and > explain why > > 4 is used instead of 1. Is that a good comprimise? > > Yeah, that's good enough. Also mention that it is a "quick > fix" and is supposed to go away. I'm sure 5 years from now, > someone will see that "quick fix" and chuckle over how it is > still in there for yet another borked phone.
Done. (revision 13731) Polycom has told us there is a fix (un-bork?) already completed for the next release. So, this kludge should indeed die in 3.10.3. In theory anyway. ;) -Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list sipx-dev@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
