Bugs item #3582533, was opened at 2012-11-01 11:59
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bogdan_iancu
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=1086410aid=3582533group_id=232389
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the
Hi,
The problem I see with the features-based release cycle is that they are
unpredictable as time - some features may not be properly (or impossible)
time evaluated - it may stretch the interval between releases ; IMHO, for a
project to reliable it is a must to be predictable. The best
Revision: 9449
http://opensips.svn.sourceforge.net/opensips/?rev=9449view=rev
Author: bogdan_iancu
Date: 2012-11-23 12:38:41 + (Fri, 23 Nov 2012)
Log Message:
---
- fix bug in port matching (side effect of the fix for doing SIP-wise DNS
lookup on destination). This
Bugs item #3589398, was opened at 2012-11-23 05:15
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by dragosoancea
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=1086410aid=3589398group_id=232389
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of
Revision: 9450
http://opensips.svn.sourceforge.net/opensips/?rev=9450view=rev
Author: liviuchircu
Date: 2012-11-23 13:57:46 + (Fri, 23 Nov 2012)
Log Message:
---
- cfgutils module: added check_time_rec() function, which matches a time
recurrence string against the
Revision: 9451
http://opensips.svn.sourceforge.net/opensips/?rev=9451view=rev
Author: vladut-paiu
Date: 2012-11-23 14:13:40 + (Fri, 23 Nov 2012)
Log Message:
---
fixed bug where dialog was marked as removed from ping list without having the
ping list lock
Modified
Revision: 9452
http://opensips.svn.sourceforge.net/opensips/?rev=9452view=rev
Author: vladut-paiu
Date: 2012-11-23 15:01:16 + (Fri, 23 Nov 2012)
Log Message:
---
backport from trunk (rev #9451)
fixed bug where dialog was marked as removed from ping list without having
Hello Liviu,
The README should specify that the time_string parameter is compatible
with RFC 2445.
Also, RFC 2445 was obsolete by RFC 5545. I don't know how much of the
RFC 2445 was implemented. Maybe the code is compatible with the new
rfc. Here are the differences between the to:
Bugs item #3585606, was opened at 2012-11-08 20:47
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by dmsanders
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=1086410aid=3585606group_id=232389
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment
