[asterisk-dev] Time for a bug fix phase?

[Sherwood McGowan]

John Lange wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 08:53 +0100, Grey Man wrote:
>   
>> If the CDR coding starts again without coming up with a proper design
>> AND getting it agreed to by the couple of Digium employees that have
>> veto power on the Asterisk code contributions then it's likely to be a
>> wasted effort again.
>>
>> The biggest problem here isn't developer resources it's getting a
>> design agreed on that will be incorporated into Asterisk. I could code
>> up a solution myself but it defeats the purpose if I then need to
>> maintain it separately and have to patch every subsequent Asterisk
>> release.
>>
>> It still seems like a mountain is being made out of a molehill as
>> well. Blind and attended transfers are not complex operations and the
>> CDRs they generate are pretty simple. They are the two types of calls
>> that by all accounts are causing people the most pain. Rather then
>> solving 20 esoteric cases why not solve the two simple ones first and
>> make 90% or more of the people following the bug happy. To date I
>> haven't even seen any comments on the two CDR bug reports on calls for
>> cases other then transfers.
>>     
>
> I agree, lets just start by fixing the bug that exists and make it work
> the way it's supposed to work.
>
> At the moment logging on transfers is just plain broken.
>
> Regards,
>   
I will definitely be glad to see the bug fixed, but at the same time I 
think that Steve had mentioned something in his blog about how there is 
just a general need for an overhaul and I agree, because a LOT of stuff 
for CDR isn't quite right. Not being able to find the original CDR (and 
therefore the CallerID of the person calling) for a call picked up from 
the parking lot is pretty important, at least to those of us who have 
parking lots. One of my clients asks me about it CONSTANTLY.

My $0.02
Sherwood McGowan