> > > The process names defined in the process definition files are > "well-known" and sacrosanct. Changing them will cause upgrade issues. > Unless the service in question is new in 4.0, its alias should not > be changed. > > Can anyone comment whether the name of sipxpresence-process is new in > 4.0 or it existed in previous release?
> It did, and Carolyn is correct - please do not change it. In this case, XCF-3268 won't be fixed. Thanks, Huijun _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
