Message-
From: Stephen Bosch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:08 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] where is 1.4.12?
shadowym wrote:
Then you should probably use a commercial application like the Business
Russel,
Please excuse me for saying it yet once more... (look for the thread Stable
Stable Asterisk, from Sunday). Build bots are nice to check and spot for
compile errors (which is good). But I think that what people are looking here
(well, specially me) is a set of automated tests for all of
Ditto. Would you complain if some one gave you a free flight that it wasn't
first class ? Asterisk is free Stop the moaning
Enough The Digium/Aseterisk bashing seems to be at an all time high
recently. You seem to be involved in a lot of it. Russell has given most of
- Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] where is 1.4.12?
Ditto. Would you complain if some one gave you a free flight
that it wasn't first class ? Asterisk is free Stop the moaning
Absolutely not! However, if someone gave me a free flight, but the
plane went down 3 out of the 5 times it took off, yes I would :)
Then, if the makes of the plane released a new version where they
fixed the problem, but now instead of going down because the motors
shut off, it would go down 3
Many of these issues only appear when you put it into production and/or
after a period of time. Most of the crashes I've seen are like this. I
simply to not have the resources to run simulations to try to find these
types of issues.
I can do one of several things. I can simply not upgrade
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 04:37:14PM -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
Steve Totaro wrote:
I don't see Matt as a troll, he is mostly helpful to people on these
lists (if memory servers me correctly).
Kind of harsh for am employee of Digium on a public Asterisk mailing
list, don't you think?
Russell Bryant wrote:
Steve Totaro wrote:
I don't see Matt as a troll, he is mostly helpful to people on these
lists (if memory servers me correctly).
Kind of harsh for am employee of Digium on a public Asterisk mailing
list, don't you think?
I tend to make my passes through the
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 07:15:51AM -0400, Matt wrote:
Absolutely not! However, if someone gave me a free flight, but the
plane went down 3 out of the 5 times it took off, yes I would :)
Then, if the makes of the plane released a new version where they
fixed the problem, but now instead of
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:48:18PM -0400, Matt wrote:
I guess that's my point. I realize asterisk is open source and FREE,
however, I wouldn't expect a commercial application to crash as often
as I've seen asterisk go down.
Windows 98.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
Matt wrote:
I guess my request is just that Digium maybe spend a little more time
in QA before rolling a release out the door. It's just annoying when
you do what should be a dot upgrade, and find out a feature that had
worked just one dot below has now stopped working, or worse yet
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:33:31PM -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
Brian West wrote:
I commend these efforts but if it compiles it doesn't mean it won't
crash in certain conditions much less run at all. Proper unit testing
is hard to do trust me I have been reading up on the subject and in
Matt wrote:
Absolutely not! However, if someone gave me a free flight, but the
plane went down 3 out of the 5 times it took off, yes I would :)
Then, if the makes of the plane released a new version where they
fixed the problem, but now instead of going down because the motors
shut off, it
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 09:38:46AM +0300, Diego Iastrubni wrote:
I have a been working on such a list, but it's more or less concentrated on
channel banks (like duh... look at my email...). I would be more then happy
to give you the list of tests I have made if you desire.
I did start a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jay R. Ashworth
Sent: 30 August 2007 13:57
To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] where is 1.4.12?
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:48:18PM -0400, Matt wrote:
I guess
you pay
for).
- Original Message -
From: Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] where is 1.4.12?
Absolutely not! However, if someone gave
- Original Message -
From: Jay R. Ashworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] where is 1.4.12?
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:48:18PM -0400, Matt wrote:
I guess that's my point. I realize asterisk
I agree with Russell's initial assessment; Matt's phrasing, if not his
intent, emanated from the land of the troll. . . if for no other reason
than the implication that Digium is solely responsible for the
development of the product.
I want to reply to this my initial comments were not
for).
- Original Message -
From: Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] where is 1.4.12?
Absolutely not! However, if someone gave me a free flight
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:48:18PM -0400, Matt wrote:
I guess that's my point. I realize asterisk is open source
and FREE,
however, I wouldn't expect a commercial application to
crash as often
as I've seen asterisk go down.
Windows 98.
wouldn't expect != haven't
On Aug 30, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Matt wrote:
impressions are everything).Digium also makes money off of the
FXO/FXS/PRI cards, which you really wouldn't use unless you were
running asterisk. So in this case, while Asterisk IS free, it is
I have to comment here.
If I recall all the zap
On Thursday 30 August 2007 9:49:57 am Matt wrote:
I want to reply to this my initial comments were not trolls.
I think, however, my initial comments reflect what alot of the
asterisk community is experiencing.WE support asterisk for people.
WE also sell phone systems based somewhat
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 08:02 -0500, Eric ManxPower Wieling wrote:
As I understand it, Digium does NO formal QA testing before the free
Asterisk/Zaptel/libPRI releases. Asterisk Business Edition is a
different story and gets extensive QA testing.
As I understand it, that's simply due to a
I'll admit I've been bitten once or twice by bugs AFTER a rollout, the vast
majority of my installations work, as far as the customer is concerned.
Yes.. OUR rollouts work fine, because we use a version of asterisk
that we are comfortable with. However, I'm talking about when we do
consulting
Yes.. OUR rollouts work fine, because we use a version of asterisk
that we are comfortable with. However, I'm talking about when we do
consulting for someone who has installed their own asterisk and then
they have some issues with it...
This is the problem to use the last release of
-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] where is 1.4.12?
I guess that's my point. I realize asterisk is open source and FREE,
however, I wouldn't expect a commercial application to crash as often
as I've seen asterisk go down. Don't get me wrong (and we're kind of
going way off topic here
-users] where is 1.4.12?
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:48:18PM -0400, Matt wrote:
I guess that's my point. I realize asterisk is open source and FREE,
however, I wouldn't expect a commercial application to crash as often
as I've seen asterisk go down.
Windows 98.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:45 PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] where is 1.4.12?
Matt wrote:
Just to chime in.. we still have a few systems running 1.2.6 because
of Digium's inability to fix bugs
Jared Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 08:02 -0500, Eric ManxPower Wieling wrote:
As I understand it, Digium does NO formal QA testing before the free
Asterisk/Zaptel/libPRI releases. Asterisk Business Edition is a
different story and gets extensive QA testing.
As I understand it,
shadowym wrote:
Then you should probably use a commercial application like the Business
Edition. I've found that once I decide to go down the open source road it's
a different ball game. Test with the latest and greatest release that has
the features you need. If it's a fairly new release
Stephen Bosch wrote:
Jared Smith wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 08:02 -0500, Eric ManxPower Wieling wrote:
As I understand it, Digium does NO formal QA testing before the free
Asterisk/Zaptel/libPRI releases. Asterisk Business Edition is a
different story and gets extensive QA testing.
As I
- Original Message -
From: Jared Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] where is 1.4.12?
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 08:02 -0500, Eric
- Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] where is 1.4.12?
shadowym wrote:
Then you should probably use a commercial application like the Business
Edition. I've found that once I decide to go down the open source road
it's
a different ball game. Test with the latest
Several days ago an announcement came out for a SIP bug in versions
below 1.4.12. So far I don't see 1.4.12 available for download and I'm
seeing something that may be the bug... My asterisk is restarting
itself about every 30 minutes.
HELP!!!
:)
Bruce Ferrell wrote:
Several days ago an announcement came out for a SIP bug in versions
below 1.4.12. So far I don't see 1.4.12 available for download and I'm
seeing something that may be the bug... My asterisk is restarting
itself about every 30 minutes.
Huh? If the announcement said
At 12:45 PM 8/29/2007, you wrote:
Restarting itself? I assume you are using safe_asterisk? It is probably
crashing, in which case we'll need a backtrace posted to
bugs.digium.com to get
it fixed.
I've tried 1.4 a few times, the latest being 1.4.11. All versions I
tried prior to 1.4.11 would
What Kernel are you using, pre 2.6.4?
On 8/29/07, Ira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:45 PM 8/29/2007, you wrote:
Restarting itself? I assume you are using safe_asterisk? It is probably
crashing, in which case we'll need a backtrace posted to
bugs.digium.com to get
it fixed.
I've tried
Just to chime in.. we still have a few systems running 1.2.6 because
of Digium's inability to fix bugs. Every version of Asterisk we've
ever tried has some sort of major bug that causes it to crash (it
being Asterisk) after being up for some period of time, or something
doesn't work right...
Matt wrote:
Just to chime in.. we still have a few systems running 1.2.6 because
of Digium's inability to fix bugs. Every version of Asterisk we've
ever tried has some sort of major bug that causes it to crash (it
being Asterisk) after being up for some period of time, or something
Digium's inability to fix bugs. What a troll ...
I'm sure you have never reported any of the issues you have experienced,
either.
We surely can't fix them if they aren't reported.
On the contrair, we have reported them.However, my concern is more
when a security release has
CentOS 4.5 Final
Kernel 2.6.9-55.0.2.EL on an I686
At 01:16 PM 8/29/2007, you wrote:
What Kernel are you using, pre 2.6.4?
On 8/29/07, Ira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:45 PM 8/29/2007, you wrote:
Restarting itself? I assume you are using safe_asterisk? It is probably
crashing, in
Russell Bryant wrote:
Matt wrote:
Just to chime in.. we still have a few systems running 1.2.6 because
of Digium's inability to fix bugs. Every version of Asterisk we've
ever tried has some sort of major bug that causes it to crash (it
being Asterisk) after being up for some period of
Steve Totaro wrote:
I don't see Matt as a troll, he is mostly helpful to people on these
lists (if memory servers me correctly).
Kind of harsh for am employee of Digium on a public Asterisk mailing
list, don't you think?
I tend to make my passes through the mailing lists very quickly and
On 8/29/07, Steve Totaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kind of harsh for am employee of Digium on a public Asterisk mailing
list, don't you think?
Enough The Digium/Aseterisk bashing seems to be at an all time high
recently. You seem to be involved in a lot of it. Russell has given most of
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 1:45 PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] where is 1.4.12?
Matt wrote:
Just to chime in.. we still have a few systems running 1.2.6 because
of Digium's inability to fix bugs. Every
Brian Roy wrote:
On 8/29/07, *Steve Totaro* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kind of harsh for am employee of Digium on a public Asterisk mailing
list, don't you think?
Enough The Digium/Aseterisk bashing seems to be at an all time
high recently. You
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] where is 1.4.12?
Matt wrote:
Just to chime in.. we still have a few systems running 1.2.6 because
of Digium's inability to fix bugs. Every version of Asterisk we've
ever tried has some sort of major bug
Matt wrote:
I guess my request is just that Digium maybe spend a little more time
in QA before rolling a release out the door. It's just annoying when
you do what should be a dot upgrade, and find out a feature that had
worked just one dot below has now stopped working, or worse yet
On Aug 29, 2007, at 9:35 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
Another Digium software developer, Joshua Colp, has recently been
working on an
automated build farm with virtual machines for all of the different
operating
systems we support. It already has 64 and 32 bit versions of Linux
(glibc and
Brian West wrote:
I commend these efforts but if it compiles it doesn't mean it won't
crash in certain conditions much less run at all. Proper unit testing
is hard to do trust me I have been reading up on the subject and in this
type of environment its hard to do proper unit tests without
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 09:48:18PM -0400, Matt wrote:
I've seen one too many security upgrades take a system
down because they induced new bugs.
In this case, do a bit of extra work, and patch your version. Finding
the exact SVN commit that fixed the security issue is normally quite
easy,
51 matches
Mail list logo
