<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Congratulations Developers Asterisk for fast release and solution of bug version 1.2.2</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">No other community was so fast.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>BJ Weschke <bweschke@gmail.com></b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Enviado Por: asterisk-dev-bounces@lists.digium.com</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">27/01/2006 09:11</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Favor responder a Asterisk Developers Mailing List</font>
<br>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> Para: Asterisk Developers Mailing List <asterisk-dev@lists.digium.com></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> cc: </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> Assunto: Re: [asterisk-dev] Asterisk 1.2.3 Released - Critical Update...Thanks for the stability!</font></table>
<p><font size=1 color=#000080 face="sans-serif"> - </font>
<p>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">On 1/27/06, tim panton <tpanton@attglobal.net> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 26 Jan 2006, at 12:22, Rich Adamson wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> However, in addition to the magic, anyone moving complete new code into<br>
> a high visibility production network without "first" testing it is nuts.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I agree with you, but in this case, we test 1.2 stable, but not test in<br>
> "time machine" mode, i mean moving the system clock forward and<br>
> backward. I thing this bug take many people by Surprise.<br>
><br>
> Obviously, it already did. Luckily out of all deployed systems, there were<br>
> not that many implementors that upgraded to v1.2.2 within the couple of<br>
> days since it was released.<br>
><br>
> (Puts head above parapet and gets ready to be 'corrected'...)<br>
><br>
> These sorts of time dependent bugs are almost impossible to find in<br>
> testing - this one only occurs every 48 days, so you'd have to have a<br>
> 7 week beta period to have tested it. And this is a 'simple' one<br>
> compared to leap seconds or whatever.<br>
><br>
> If I read the patch right this was a bug where a signed 32bit quantity was<br>
> treated as if it were unsigned (or the other was around).<br>
><br>
> You'll only catch this kind of thing with lint, and/or strict use of<br>
> macros/functions to do time comparisons.<br>
><br>
> For the first time in 10 years I understand why all integer types in Java<br>
> are signed, which is ironic, I've just been grumbling about all those<br>
> 64 bit ints I need to represent IAX 32bit (unsigned) timestamps!<br>
><br>
> (P.S. I love the hint that Mark contributed to the fix over a 9600baud<br>
> GPRS connection)<br>
><br>
<br>
Mark has certainly had a busy week this week. In addition to the bug<br>
fix, he's also been on both coasts to do keynotes at the ITExpo sure<br>
in FL and then San Fran for O'Reilly's ETel.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Bird's The Word Technologies, Inc.<br>
http://www.btwtech.com/<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --<br>
<br>
asterisk-dev mailing list<br>
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:<br>
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>