[Asterisk-Dev] asterisk 'stable'?

[Brian K. West]

On 9/13/05 3:29 PM, "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at digium.com> wrote:

>> the asterisk 1.0 is named stable, and as i've been told that's  because
>> it's feature-frozen.
> 
> And we've already decided to stop using that nomenclature for future
> releases.

Yes that was a bad choice to call it "stable".

> 
>> will there ever bee a STABLE asterisk, as in 'does not crash'?
> 
> What else do you have in your life that is perfect and never experiences
> any problems? Of those things, how many of them are as configurable and
> run on as wide a variety of systems as Asterisk does?

Lets see.  Apache, MySQL, OpenH323 and many more run without issues and run
on a wide variety of systems.   So that argument is totally false.
 
> Let's be a little realistic here, OK?

These are very realistic goals to have software that does what it should and
does it without fail.  Asterisk is very routinely tested on low load systems
with very few calls and these problems will never show up under those kinds
of loads.  When you load a system up with 200 calls you'll start to see all
kinds of weird things taking place that usually don't show up.  Asterisk
should be tested with in the lab with these types of configurations.

/b