---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3433/
---
(Updated April 15, 2014, 3:13 p.m.)
Status
--
This change has been
On April 10, 2014, 6:20 p.m., rmudgett wrote:
I'm not seeing any protection from loss of frames when the channels
optimize out. Losing media frames isn't nice but is tollerable. Losing
control frames is unacceptable.
Joshua Colp wrote:
1. Can you explain the scenario and how I
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3433/#review11554
---
Well, this is really cool. I love reviews that mostly remove
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3433/#review11572
---
I'm not seeing any protection from loss of frames when the
On April 10, 2014, 6:52 p.m., Mark Michelson wrote:
Well, this is really cool. I love reviews that mostly remove code in order
to simplify something. Some concerns:
1) Documentation wise, there is a mixture of nomenclature used for the
subchannels of a local channel. You have
On April 10, 2014, 11:20 p.m., rmudgett wrote:
I'm not seeing any protection from loss of frames when the channels
optimize out. Losing media frames isn't nice but is tollerable. Losing
control frames is unacceptable.
1. Can you explain the scenario and how I would lose frames.
2.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3433/
---
Review request for Asterisk Developers, Matt Jordan, Mark Michelson, and
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3433/#review11533
---
If we do think this is viable then comments on my
