Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Monday 24 December 2007 10:30:57 Dovid B wrote:
While this encourages me to use 1.4 at the same time it makes me wonder why
Digium waited that long...
Because IT has other things to do than upgrade the PBX?
Which makes for a good answer to Olle's original
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:40:32PM +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote:
Olle E Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But on the other hand, if people rely on third-party distributions
we might want to set up some kind of peer pressure on the
maintainers - and possibly
Anthony Francis wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:40:32PM +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote:
Olle E Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But on the other hand, if people rely on third-party distributions
we might want to set up some kind of peer pressure on the
On Mon, Dec 24, 2007 at 04:11:30AM -0700, Anthony Francis wrote:
Asterisk is fairly easy to build, I don't see why it needs to be in a
repo. IMO
Why does it need to be in a tarball? Isn't it simpler to just grab from
an SVN tag?
There are many benefits to a reproducable build. Also consider
On Mon, 2007-12-24 at 04:11 -0700, Anthony Francis wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:40:32PM +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote:
Olle E Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But on the other hand, if people rely on third-party distributions
we might want to set up
On Mon, 2007-12-24 at 04:11 -0700, Anthony Francis wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:40:32PM +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote:
Olle E Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But on the other hand, if people rely on third-party distributions
we might want to set up
- Original Message -
From: Tilghman Lesher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Upgrade to Asterisk 1.4 - it's one year's old!
On Friday 21
On Monday 24 December 2007 10:30:57 Dovid B wrote:
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Friday 21 December 2007 13:16:17 Matt wrote:
It may be a year old.. but until Digium is drinking their own dog food..
I
won't be using it.
I beg your pardon. The Digium IVR has been on 1.4 since about April
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:40:32PM +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote:
Olle E Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But on the other hand, if people rely on third-party distributions
we might want to set up some kind of peer pressure on the
maintainers - and possibly identify them so we can support
I wonder if there are any major obstacles for upgrading.
Just tried an in-place upgrade on my home box :
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/asterisk-addons-1.4.5'
for x in app_addon_sql_mysql.so app_saycountpl.so cdr_addon_mysql.so
res_config_mysql.so; do /usr/bin/install -c -m 755 $x
remco,
I just had the same problem/error on my CLI when I added a polycom
shoretel IP-100 phone to my network and enabled mgcp... couldn't
figure out how to get that working yet...
I don't think it is related to 1.4 as I have been running 1.4 has been
running for over a year now without that
It may be a year old.. but until Digium is drinking their own dog food.. I
won't be using it.
On Dec 21, 2007 9:26 AM, dave cantera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
remco,
I just had the same problem/error on my CLI when I added a polycom
shoretel IP-100 phone to my network and enabled mgcp...
On Friday 21 December 2007 13:16:17 Matt wrote:
It may be a year old.. but until Digium is drinking their own dog food.. I
won't be using it.
I beg your pardon. The Digium IVR has been on 1.4 since about April or so.
--
Tilghman
___
--Bandwidth
21 dec 2007 kl. 10.12 skrev Remco Barendse:
I wonder if there are any major obstacles for upgrading.
Just tried an in-place upgrade on my home box :
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/asterisk-addons-1.4.5'
for x in app_addon_sql_mysql.so app_saycountpl.so cdr_addon_mysql.so
-Commercial Discussion
asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Upgrade to Asterisk 1.4 - it's one year's old!
dovid...
while this seems like a good idea to have both sip show channels and
show channels sip having two, three or even four
Hi
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:19:08AM -0500, dave cantera wrote:
ok, here is my $0.02... I created a script since I had to
install/update so often and for various reasons...
you can choose to compile automatically or manually...
modify the current release numbers, your repository, and
tzafrir,
thanks for the note. btw, Great docs!
asciidocs looks cool too!
thanks!
daveC
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:19:08AM -0500, dave cantera wrote:
ok, here is my $0.02... I created a script since I had to
install/update so often and for various
Hi Steve,
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 19:43 -0800, Steve Edwards wrote:
The old syntax was inconsistent -- show manager command vs sip show
channels and just plain bad -- for example sip reload should have been
reload sip.
I agree. Reload sip would be the logical thing.
[snip]
Approach the
Hi Olle,
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:20 +0100, Johansson Olle E wrote:
[snip]
The old way was a mess. We had two different systems, one like your
old show and one syntax starting with the module name. We had
to move forward with only one syntax and decided to go for modulename
verb
which
Discussion
Asunto: Re: [asterisk-users] Upgrade to Asterisk 1.4 - it's one year's
old!
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Johansson Olle E wrote:
I wonder if there are any major obstacles for upgrading.
How about the change from a bad command line interface to a really bad
command line interface?
I mean
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:40:21PM +0100, James Collier wrote:
I think it should be core dogs show black.
You should use color instead of black to make the comparison more
valid.
show dog color
Doesn't sound right (Here's a colour for you, doggy. Fetch!).
--
Tzafrir Cohen
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 07:40:21 James Collier wrote:
I think it should be core dogs show black.
No, that violates the pattern. dogs is not a verb. core show black dogs
or dogs show black would be the correct form.
--
Tilghman
___
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 07:40:21 James Collier wrote:
I think it should be core dogs show black.
No, that violates the pattern. dogs is not a verb. core show black dogs
or dogs show black would be the correct form.
Could this CLI syntax move over
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:33 -0600, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 07:40:21 James Collier wrote:
I think it should be core dogs show black.
No, that violates the pattern. dogs is not a verb. core show black dogs
or dogs show black would be the correct form.
Sorry
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Patrick wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:33 -0600, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 07:40:21 James Collier wrote:
I think it should be core dogs show black.
No, that violates the pattern. dogs is not a verb. core show black dogs
or dogs show black
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 09:31:02 Patrick wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:33 -0600, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 07:40:21 James Collier wrote:
I think it should be core dogs show black.
No, that violates the pattern. dogs is not a verb. core show black
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, MatsK wrote:
Steve Edwards wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Patrick wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:33 -0600, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 07:40:21 James Collier wrote:
I think it should be core dogs show black.
No, that violates the pattern. dogs
Steve Edwards wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Patrick wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:33 -0600, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 07:40:21 James Collier wrote:
I think it should be core dogs show black.
No, that violates the pattern. dogs is not a
We're not discussing code or the inner workings of Asterisk or even
changing the functionality of Asterisk, just what the proper order
of the words should be.
Most of us users are people, not parsers. The developers? Well,
that's why they're developers :)
Thanks in advance,
We are
Since we're WAY OT anyway
Tony Plack wrote:
That being said, ordering in a command structure should make sense to the
application (less intelligent entity), not to the programmer (hopefully
more intelligent).
If that were true then we really should be writing our dialplans in
- Original Message -
From: Steve Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
asterisk-users@lists.digium.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:43 AM
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Upgrade to Asterisk 1.4 - it's one year's old!
On Sat, 15
to Asterisk 1.4 - it's one year's old!
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 07:40:21 James Collier wrote:
I think it should be core dogs show black.
No, that violates the pattern. dogs is not a verb. core show black dogs
or dogs show black would be the correct form
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 07:22:18 Patrick wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 19:43 -0800, Steve Edwards wrote:
The old syntax was inconsistent -- show manager command vs sip show
channels and just plain bad -- for example sip reload should have been
reload sip.
I agree. Reload sip would be
: [asterisk-users] Upgrade to Asterisk 1.4 - it's one year's old!
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Johansson Olle E wrote:
I wonder if there are any major obstacles for upgrading.
How about the change from a bad command line interface to a really bad
command line interface?
I mean, Seriously
Discussion'
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Upgrade to Asterisk 1.4 - it's one year's old!
I would rather the Developers spend their precious time improving the
stablilty and reliability than creating a smooth upgrade process. Not that
I don't think it is at least as reliable and stable as 1.2
On Monday 17 December 2007 19:30:46 Don Kelly wrote:
Maybe some of the developers could work on stability and reliability while
others work on a smooth upgrade process and yet others work on usability.
Still others might look at enhancements, rather than considering a PBX as
an appliance like
At 10:33 AM 12/17/2007, you wrote:
At 02:55 AM 12/17/2007, you wrote:
I wonder if there are any major obstacles for upgrading.
Because of your message I tried upgrading to 1.4 again Saturday. That
was the third or fourth time I've tried and the first time it's
lasted more than a few hours
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Johansson Olle E wrote:
I wonder if there are any major obstacles for upgrading.
How about the change from a bad command line interface to a really bad
command line interface?
I mean, Seriously? (in a Grey's Anatomy kind of way...)
The old syntax was inconsistent -- show
Steve Edwards wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Johansson Olle E wrote:
I wonder if there are any major obstacles for upgrading.
How about the change from a bad command line interface to a really bad
command line interface?
I mean, Seriously? (in a Grey's Anatomy kind of way...)
ok, here is my $0.02... I created a script since I had to
install/update so often and for various reasons...
you can choose to compile automatically or manually...
modify the current release numbers, your repository, and source root...
all else is automated..
which is unloading zap driver,
19 dec 2007 kl. 04.43 skrev Steve Edwards:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Johansson Olle E wrote:
I wonder if there are any major obstacles for upgrading.
How about the change from a bad command line interface to a really bad
command line interface?
Steve,
While I don't believe the CLI syntax stops
On Dec 15, 2007 11:57 AM, Johansson Olle E [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm kind of interested in the slow uptake of Asterisk 1.4. Between 1.2
SNIP
- Not enough reasons to upgrade, since 1.2 really works well
- Just a bad karma for 1.4
Hi Olle,
It's very simple in my case. I did the install
Hi.
The only problem i have is with sending and recieving Faxes. Right now i'm
using spandsp an app_rtxfax. This works fine. But there seem to be no spandsp
and app_rtx packages in my gentoo.
ciao
t.
--
knowledgeTools® ... managing complexity.
I wonder if there are any major obstacles for upgrading.
My reasons for not moving to 1.4 :
- fear of possible instability problems, my 1.2 servers are rock solid
- fear of goofing up with the new way you have to configure asterisk
at install time (tell it which modules to build or not
My reasons for not yet upgrading to 1.4:
- I have a lot of customisations to app_meetme, which I will need to port
to 1.4. I have procrastinated about doing so because of all the SLA
stuff that got grafted into app_meetme during the early 1.4 versions.
If I had developed the SLA code, I
Hello
As a person who is somewhat a newbie to Asterisk, I have been given
the task of preparing our 1.2 installation for upgrade. The thing that
has slowed me down is some of the gaps in information on the upgrade
process. What's on the Wiki might make complete sense to both
experienced Linux
On Monday 17 December 2007 04:17:32 Thomas Stein wrote:
The only problem i have is with sending and recieving Faxes. Right now i'm
using spandsp an app_rtxfax. This works fine. But there seem to be no
spandsp and app_rtx packages in my gentoo.
That sounds more like an issue in Gentoo than in
17 dec 2007 kl. 10.45 skrev randulo:
On Dec 15, 2007 11:57 AM, Johansson Olle E [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm kind of interested in the slow uptake of Asterisk 1.4. Between
1.2
SNIP
- Not enough reasons to upgrade, since 1.2 really works well
- Just a bad karma for 1.4
Hi Olle,
It's
Tony,
Thanks for the feedback!
17 dec 2007 kl. 12.40 skrev Tony Mountifield:
- I have a lot of customisations to app_meetme, which I will need to
port
How about sharing them so we can maintain them in the open source base?
:-)
- Scare stories about IAX-related lockups in 1.4, due to the
17 dec 2007 kl. 14.11 skrev Tilghman Lesher:
On Monday 17 December 2007 04:17:32 Thomas Stein wrote:
The only problem i have is with sending and recieving Faxes. Right
now i'm
using spandsp an app_rtxfax. This works fine. But there seem to be no
spandsp and app_rtx packages in my gentoo.
On Monday 17 December 2007, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Monday 17 December 2007 04:17:32 Thomas Stein wrote:
The only problem i have is with sending and recieving Faxes. Right now
i'm using spandsp an app_rtxfax. This works fine. But there seem to be no
spandsp and app_rtx packages for 1.4 in
Johansson Olle E wrote:
Friends in the Asterisk community,
I'm kind of interested in the slow uptake of Asterisk 1.4. Between 1.2
and 1.4 there's been a lot of
important development. New code cleanups, optimization, new functions.
For Asterisk users in countries that use the MFC/R2
Remco Barendse wrote:
- fear of goofing up with the new way you have to configure asterisk
at install time (tell it which modules to build or not build)
This step is completely optional. If you don't do anything, it will
build the same way that Asterisk 1.2 did (i.e. it will build every
- Not enough reasons to upgrade, since 1.2 really works well - Just
a bad karma for 1.4
Funny, but my results have been different. I was running on 1.2.17 (and on to
22) for a year and had all sorts of lockups. For me, when I switched to 1.4.5
these things went away.
I did find some bugs
All I can say is with 1.6, if a change is made that causes
something that worked in 1.4 not to work in 1.6, please think
twice, three times or four times before making the change, or
making the change in such a way that it won't break dialplan
stuff from 1.4.
Our policy is to never remove
Tony Plack wrote:
All I can say is with 1.6, if a change is made that causes
something that worked in 1.4 not to work in 1.6, please think
twice, three times or four times before making the change, or
making the change in such a way that it won't break dialplan
stuff from 1.4.
Our policy is
phil,
I think you are on to it... the best path is to load a new system up
with 1.4.x and port your existing dialplan over, test it out, lock it
down and then roll it out...
I've worked as a UNIX system integrator for 20+ years, worked with open
source and custom developed C/C++ code, Ada, and
On 12/15/07, Johansson Olle E [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Friends in the Asterisk community,
I'm kind of interested in the slow uptake of Asterisk 1.4. Between 1.2
and 1.4 there's been a lot of
important development. New code cleanups, optimization, new functions.
I realize that 1.4 at release
Phil Knighton wrote:
Hello
As a person who is somewhat a newbie to Asterisk, I have been given
the task of preparing our 1.2 installation for upgrade. The thing that
has slowed me down is some of the gaps in information on the upgrade
process. What's on the Wiki might make complete sense
17 dec 2007 kl. 15.26 skrev Tony Plack:
- Not enough reasons to upgrade, since 1.2 really works well - Just
a bad karma for 1.4
Funny, but my results have been different. I was running on 1.2.17
(and on to 22) for a year and had all sorts of lockups. For me,
when I switched to 1.4.5
17 dec 2007 kl. 15.42 skrev Tony Plack:
All I can say is with 1.6, if a change is made that causes
something that worked in 1.4 not to work in 1.6, please think
twice, three times or four times before making the change, or
making the change in such a way that it won't break dialplan
stuff
However 1.4 since release have had some serious changes that blocked
our
planned upgrades - for example some memory corruption that raised
between 1.4.10 and 1.4.12 that was very hard to track down. This shows
that having 1.4 in bugfix-only state is not actually working that
good -
we
Agreed.
Given that our group has many 1.2 versions working well on CentOS 3.x
boxes, and that 1.4 requires either 4 or 5, your option of starting
all
over is about all that will work.
I would like to know a bit more on why Asteirsk 1.4 means that you have
to upgrade Centos? (obviously not
Hi,
To summurize, it seems that one thing preventing people from upgrading is
the lack of an upgrading tool : somehow, it should be possible and easy to :
- install 2 different versions of Asterisk on the same hardware,
- interactively translate config files from one version to another
- load
At 02:55 AM 12/17/2007, you wrote:
I wonder if there are any major obstacles for upgrading.
Because of your message I tried upgrading to 1.4 again Saturday. That
was the third or fourth time I've tried and the first time it's
lasted more than a few hours before segfaulting and causing me to
17 dec 2007 kl. 18.57 skrev Olivier:
Hi,
To summurize, it seems that one thing preventing people from
upgrading is the lack of an upgrading tool : somehow, it should be
possible and easy to :
- install 2 different versions of Asterisk on the same hardware,
- interactively translate
17 dec 2007 kl. 19.33 skrev Ira:
At 02:55 AM 12/17/2007, you wrote:
I wonder if there are any major obstacles for upgrading.
Because of your message I tried upgrading to 1.4 again Saturday. That
was the third or fourth time I've tried and the first time it's
lasted more than a few hours
Olle E Johansson wrote:
*snipped
But on the other hand, if people rely on third-party distributions we
might want
to set up some kind of peer pressure on the maintainers - and possibly
identify them so we can support them and speed up their process.
/O
that is a very important, 'so we
On Saturday 15 December 2007 08:42, Steve Totaro wrote:
Johansson Olle E wrote:
I'm kind of interested in the slow uptake of Asterisk 1.4. Between 1.2
and 1.4 there's been a lot of
important development. New code cleanups, optimization, new functions.
When Digium starts using 1.4 in ABE
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 4:27 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Upgrade to Asterisk 1.4 - it's one year's old!
Hello
As a person who is somewhat a newbie to Asterisk, I have been given
the task of preparing our 1.2
break it.
-Original Message-
From: Atis Lezdins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 6:59 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Upgrade to Asterisk 1.4 - it's one year's old!
On 12/15/07, Johansson Olle E [EMAIL
shadowym wrote:
I do wish Digium or whoever tests this stuff had a more reliable way of
testing software releases rather than relying on feedback from the
community. Fonality, for example use what they call a hammer which sounds
to me like a bunch of servers running various stress tests on
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 12:00 -0800, shadowym wrote:
I do wish Digium or whoever tests this stuff had a more reliable way of
testing software releases rather than relying on feedback from the
community. Fonality, for example use what they call a hammer which sounds
to me like a bunch of servers
Olle E Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But on the other hand, if people rely on third-party distributions
we might want to set up some kind of peer pressure on the
maintainers - and possibly identify them so we can support them and
speed up their process.
Third-party distributions are
At 03:54 PM 12/15/2007, you wrote:
I'm curious to hear how you would have approached the problem of
retrieving multiple columns out of a database and setting each column
to its own variable. That is precisely what ARRAY() is designed to
accomplish, and it CANNOT be done by letting Set have
We build and maintain 7 Asterisk boxes for our customers, I have
recently moved 3 to 1.4. I also use iaxmodem and on the last one 1.4.14
I was getting iax thread errors - which was reported as a bug in much
earlier versions but apparently fixed. When 1.4.15 came out (two days
later) it solved
Ira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I'd be happy if they came up with an elegant language with
functions, parameters and proper variable scoping while getting rid
of line numbers and all the rest of the baggage that shouldn't have
been there in the first place. AEL is an attempt to solve
Olle E Johansson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
asterisk -c starts Asterisk in the foreground and outputs all
messages to the console, things
that you may not catch otherwise when you start Asterisk in the
background.
You can do that, but not while Asterisk is running. So it isn't really
an
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 10:51 -0600, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
If anything broke from the transition from 1.2 to 1.4, it is because you were
using something that was deprecated in 1.2. What we had attempted to do
in deprecation modes was to print the warning ONCE for each deprecated
operation,
We run everything on ubuntu server 6.06 LTS and also use freepbx as
the
interface with some minor customisations. It works very well and we
are
now shifting some others to 1.4 but the issue is if anything goes
wrong
its too costly to fix, as part of maintenance we keep them
The only reason I am not upgrading to 1.4 is because out-of-the-tar it just
won't build on my Fedora Core 4 machine.
http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=9643
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Johansson Olle E
Sent: Saturday,
On Saturday 15 December 2007 12:14:29 David Boyd wrote:
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 10:51 -0600, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
Of course, all of these deprecations should be covered in UPGRADE.txt, so
please read that file every time you upgrade to a new version. It will
contain everything that has
Mike wrote:
The only reason I am not upgrading to 1.4 is because out-of-the-tar it just
won't build on my Fedora Core 4 machine.
http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=9643
Umm... forgive me for jumping in here, but that bug is for a (now
unsupported) H.323 channel driver in asterisk-addons, with
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 12:12 -0500, Mike wrote:
The only reason I am not upgrading to 1.4 is because out-of-the-tar it just
won't build on my Fedora Core 4 machine.
http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=9643
Seen that one on and off. Don't know why this error keeps popping up.
Would be nice if
I have not made the switch from 1.2 to 1.4 yet due to operating a ITSP
Asterisk Cluster. I cannot upgrade any one machine without upgrading
all. Basically I need to build a duplicate cluster with 1.4, debug it
then roll traffic to it. This is a pretty gargantuan effort that I'm
currently
On Sunday 16 December 2007 02:19:16 Ira wrote:
At 03:54 PM 12/15/2007, you wrote:
I'm curious to hear how you would have approached the problem of
retrieving multiple columns out of a database and setting each column
to its own variable. That is precisely what ARRAY() is designed to
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Sunday 16 December 2007 02:19:16 Ira wrote:
At 03:54 PM 12/15/2007, you wrote:
I'm curious to hear how you would have approached the problem of
retrieving multiple columns out of a database and setting each column
to its own variable. That is precisely what ARRAY()
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Dave
On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 10:43 -0600, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Saturday 15 December 2007 12:14:29 David Boyd wrote:
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 10:51 -0600, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
Of course, all of these deprecations should be covered in UPGRADE.txt, so
At 11:12 AM 12/16/2007, you wrote:
That is precisely what ARRAY() is designed to accomplish, and it
CANNOT be done by letting Set have multiple key/value
pairs.
Whatever, but don't call it array(). I was so excited when I saw
there was a new function called array because some part of my
Ira wrote:
At 11:12 AM 12/16/2007, you wrote:
That is precisely what ARRAY() is designed to accomplish, and it
CANNOT be done by letting Set have multiple key/value
pairs.
Whatever, but don't call it array(). I was so excited when I saw
there was a new function called array because some
On Saturday 15 December 2007 15:48:01 Philipp Kempgen wrote:
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
If anything broke from the transition from 1.2 to 1.4, it is because you
were using something that was deprecated in 1.2.
After thinking about it for a while this is not true.
Well, it's true for the
Hi,
Friends in the Asterisk community,
I'm kind of interested in the slow uptake of Asterisk 1.4. Between 1.2
and 1.4 there's been a lot of
important development. New code cleanups, optimization, new functions.
Just my 2 cents
I have more than 70 running servers installed with 1.2, we
Hello everybody,
Since 1.4 release our company installed more then 200 Asterisk servers using
Asterisk 1.4 version.
At start we had several bugs with SIP channel and CDR handling but starting
from 1.4.6 or something it works without problems.
We are really happy with 1.4 and thank you for
Johansson Olle E wrote:
Friends in the Asterisk community,
I'm kind of interested in the slow uptake of Asterisk 1.4. Between 1.2
and 1.4 there's been a lot of
important development. New code cleanups, optimization, new functions.
I realize that 1.4 at release time wasn't ready for
15 dec 2007 kl. 15.42 skrev Steve Totaro:
Johansson Olle E wrote:
Friends in the Asterisk community,
I'm kind of interested in the slow uptake of Asterisk 1.4. Between
1.2
and 1.4 there's been a lot of
important development. New code cleanups, optimization, new
functions.
I realize
One of the biggest barriers to upgrading are the number of little
gotchas in syntax changes that can make an upgrade from 1.2 to 1.4
quite painful. After the pain I went through upgrading to 1.4, I've
always been recommending to people to think twice about upgrading if 1.2
does what they require.
On Saturday 15 December 2007 10:02:23 Rob Hillis wrote:
One of the biggest barriers to upgrading are the number of little
gotchas in syntax changes that can make an upgrade from 1.2 to 1.4
quite painful. After the pain I went through upgrading to 1.4, I've
always been recommending to people
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
If anything broke from the transition from 1.2 to 1.4, it is because you were
using something that was deprecated in 1.2. What we had attempted to do
in deprecation modes was to print the warning ONCE for each deprecated
operation, per Asterisk startup. I think that
I wonder if there are any major obstacles for upgrading.
From our perspective I'd have to say package management.
We manage a *lot* of asterisk boxes at client locations at the end of DSL
connections. We have a schedule to make sure each box is updated once a month
(e.g. these 10 boxes are
On Sat, 2007-12-15 at 10:51 -0600, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Saturday 15 December 2007 10:02:23 Rob Hillis wrote:
One of the biggest barriers to upgrading are the number of little
gotchas in syntax changes that can make an upgrade from 1.2 to 1.4
quite painful. After the pain I went
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
