<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 3 June 2011 22:41, Hans Witvliet <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hwit@a-domani.nl">hwit@a-domani.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 09:07 +0100, Ishfaq Malik wrote:<br>
> Are you suggesting that there are no bugs in 1.4 or 1.6?<br>
<br>
</div>I presume that you are aware of the fact that it is impossible to prove<br>
the absence of "bugs" in any piece of software....<br>
You might not have detected them yet.<br>
Furthermore behaviour that might have been coded on purpose, can be<br>
considered "eroneously" some time later.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Currently there seems to be a fear of 1.8. We're about to put it into<br>
> production and yes, we've had issues with it, mostly due to the fact we<br>
> use RealTime, but before you change anything it is always advisable to<br>
> test the hell out of it.<br>
><br>
> To anyone who is thinking of moving to 1.8 the question is not, 'is it<br>
> stable?'. The question is, 'have I comprehensively tested it to show<br>
> that it is suitable for my needs?'<br>
<br>
</div>If you put it into production, test at least the functions that you are<br>
going to use. There might (and probably will) problems in the code, but<br>
as long as it does not bother you, so what?<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>See this thread here about Asterisk 1.8 - and Digium's view on the matter.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://nerdvittles.com/?p=743">http://nerdvittles.com/?p=743</a></div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div>