| 06:31.27 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs oej (n=olle@ns.webway.se) |
| 07:39.01 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs oej (n=olle@ns.webway.se) |
| 08:42.12 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs oej (n=olle@ns.webway.se) |
| 08:45.08 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs oej_ (n=olle@ns.webway.se) |
| 10:10.53 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs pabelanger (n=pabelang@OTWAON23-1242541604.sdsl.bell.ca) |
| 10:18.34 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs jack_sparo (n=eddy@81-208-91-225.ip.fastwebnet.it) |
| 10:43.08 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs JunK-Y (n=junky@modemcable156.137-20-96.mc.videotron.ca) |
| 10:43.08 | *** mode/#asterisk-bugs [+o JunK-Y] by ChanServ |
| 11:46.00 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs shido6 (n=shido6@209.114.208.192) |
| 12:11.13 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs russellb (n=russellb@asterisk/developer-and-stable-maintainer/drumkilla) |
| 12:11.13 | *** mode/#asterisk-bugs [+o russellb] by ChanServ |
| 12:33.48 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs lmadsen (n=Leif@asterisk/documenteur-extraordinaire/blitzrage) |
| 12:33.48 | *** mode/#asterisk-bugs [+o lmadsen] by ChanServ |
| 12:46.27 | lmadsen | M13187 |
| 12:46.29 | MuffinMan | [new] [Asterisk] Applications/app_voicemail 0013187: vmail.cgi does not look in users.conf -- misses users defined through AsteriskGUI reported by netvoice (Karma: neutral) http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=13187 |
| 12:46.35 | lmadsen | this seems like I should close it as a feature request |
| 12:46.45 | russellb | eh, I don't know |
| 12:46.50 | russellb | seems valid enough to me |
| 12:47.09 | lmadsen | really? |
| 12:47.14 | russellb | sure |
| 12:47.19 | lmadsen | is vmail.cgi actively developed? |
| 12:47.21 | russellb | no |
| 12:47.29 | russellb | but i don't imagine fixing this is the end of the world |
| 12:47.33 | russellb | for someone that knows perl |
| 12:47.35 | lmadsen | I would agree :) |
| 12:47.54 | lmadsen | but it still seems to fall under feature request... I've had similar requests closed on me before ;) |
| 12:48.53 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs DagMoller (n=aguirre@unaffiliated/dagmoller) |
| 12:48.53 | lmadsen | I will leave it open for now then |
| 12:50.42 | russellb | i feel like it's closing something for the sake of closing something |
| 12:51.17 | russellb | anyway, i'd like to leave it open for now. |
| 12:51.28 | lmadsen | np, I've already moved on :) |
| 13:03.14 | lmadsen | quick advice on the following section of the bug guidelines (and if this becomes a longer discussion, I will move it to the -dev list), but the main question is, "do we still use the pending release branch" status at all? |
| 13:03.27 | lmadsen | here is the content I'm trying to determine whether needs to be reworded: |
| 13:03.28 | lmadsen | 2) Consult the release branch commit policy for help in deciding whether a patch should go into the queue for review in the release branch. If there is any doubt, a report should be placed in the 'pending release branch' status and assigned to one of the release branch maintainers. The maintainers will make the decision whether this change will be accepted into the release branch. |
| 13:05.01 | lmadsen | perhaps 'acknowledged' just becomes more general, and doesn't relate only to trunk, but rather just means generally, 'there is a patch here, and it needs review' |
| 13:06.55 | russellb | That sounds fine to me |
| 13:06.55 | seanbright | you can assign that one to me if you wish |
| 13:07.04 | russellb | that status hasn't really been used in a while |
| 13:07.41 | lmadsen | ya... I'm kinda trying to figure out a good way of moving things out of 'new' so they are more obvious |
| 13:08.51 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs shido6 (n=shido6@209.114.208.192) |
| 13:09.43 | lmadsen | seanbright: thanks! and done. |
| 13:09.56 | lmadsen | russellb: thanks for the feedback |
| 13:10.19 | seanbright | now i just have to learn perl... |
| 13:10.28 | lmadsen | lol |
| 13:10.37 | lmadsen | you're a trooper! |
| 13:10.56 | seanbright | i do what i can. |
| 13:15.34 | lmadsen | do you guys like this idea for 'confirmed' status? |
| 13:15.35 | lmadsen | CONFIRMED: The patch associated with this issue has passed initial formatting and code review, and may have some initial testing done. It is waiting for a developer to confirm the patch will no longer need large changes made to it, and is ready for wider testing from the community. |
| 13:16.13 | lmadsen | I will be posting my changes to the -dev list for further discussion from the community, but just getting initial thoughts on the my wording |
| 13:16.25 | russellb | what are "confirmed" bugs? "acknowledged" ? |
| 13:17.28 | lmadsen | here is what I have for those: |
| 13:17.29 | lmadsen | ACKNOWLEGED: This is an issue which has a patch associated with it is awaiting initial code review. |
| 13:17.29 | lmadsen | CONFIRMED: The patch associated with this issue has passed initial formatting and code review, and may have some initial testing done. It is waiting for a developer to confirm the patch will no longer need large changes made to it, and is ready for wider testing from the community. |
| 13:18.02 | lmadsen | basically 'new' with [patch] in the title is kinda the de-facto 'acknowledged', but I'm thinking of making that an actual status |
| 13:18.11 | lmadsen | I'd like to be able to move things out of the 'new' stage more easily |
| 13:18.18 | russellb | cool |
| 13:18.25 | russellb | so, if it has no patch ... |
| 13:18.28 | russellb | but is clearly a bug |
| 13:18.30 | russellb | where does it go? |
| 13:18.37 | lmadsen | that is what I've been struggling with too... |
| 13:18.48 | lmadsen | perhaps we can rename 'pending release branch' ? |
| 13:18.57 | russellb | sure, whatever we need to do |
| 13:19.03 | lmadsen | that status I have marked as: |
| 13:19.04 | lmadsen | PENDING RELEASE BRANCH: This status is no longer used. It is a relic of the Asterisk 1.2 days. |
| 13:19.05 | russellb | we have to figure out how to do that ... |
| 13:19.10 | russellb | but i know it can be done |
| 13:19.11 | russellb | heh |
| 13:19.15 | lmadsen | ya, you'd think so :) |
| 13:19.27 | lmadsen | or... |
| 13:19.55 | lmadsen | we can use 'acknowledged' to say, "yes, this is probably a bug", and merge "confirmed" with the two descriptions I mentioned above |
| 13:21.00 | russellb | yeah, I think that might be good |
| 13:21.04 | lmadsen | I agree |
| 13:21.17 | lmadsen | ok, I'm gonna go with that... because separating the acknowledge and confirmed to those two actions seems kinda silly |
| 13:21.46 | lmadsen | acknowledge will mean, "this is a bug without patch", and confirmed will mean "this is a bug, and a patch is attached that is not yet ready for testing" |
| 13:28.33 | russellb | can we have a "sexy party" status? |
| 13:28.50 | russellb | when an issue is in a really exciting status? |
| 13:29.09 | russellb | Like, if we got the coolest patch all year, it can go into "sexy party" status |
| 13:29.25 | lmadsen | yes! we can rename the Pending Release Branch to that |
| 13:29.34 | lmadsen | because it'll be marked as green, and thus... sexy |
| 13:29.41 | russellb | ok, perfect |
| 13:30.15 | lmadsen | lol |
| 13:30.31 | lmadsen | at least no one could blame us for not having a sense of humour |
| 13:30.40 | russellb | yes |
| 13:30.46 | russellb | also, please include it in the document |
| 13:30.57 | russellb | "Sexy Party": Self-explanatory. |
| 13:31.55 | russellb | Or perhaps just merge that with the "pending release branch" explanation |
| 13:32.04 | russellb | a relic of the 1.2 days ... soon to be renamed to "sexy party". |
| 13:32.11 | lmadsen | don't tempt me |
| 13:32.17 | lmadsen | I wonder if anyone would actually notice.... |
| 13:32.32 | lmadsen | it would be a good way to determine if anyone actually read the document :) |
| 13:33.59 | russellb | and if anyone is a big enough party pooper to object |
| 14:01.00 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs codefreeze-lap (n=murf@216.166.159.235) |
| 14:10.09 | lmadsen | I just posted my suggestions for a bug status guideline to the -dev list, for anyone who wants to review and comment! |
| 14:20.36 | *** part/#asterisk-bugs oej (n=olle@ns.webway.se) |
| 14:55.41 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs jpeeler (n=jpeeler@asterisk/digium-software-dev/jpeeler) |
| 14:59.46 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs Corydon76-lap (n=Corydon7@pdpc/supporter/bronze/Corydon76-home) |
| 14:59.46 | *** mode/#asterisk-bugs [+o Corydon76-lap] by ChanServ |
| 16:44.57 | Corydon76-lap | pokes seanbright |
| 16:45.30 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs pjezek (n=pj@193.85.164.154) |
| 17:01.51 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs atis_work (n=atis_wor@193.238.212.171) |
| 17:29.13 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs rathaus2 (n=rathaus@212-150-194-226.barak.net.il) |
| 17:29.21 | rathaus2 | Corydon u there? |
| 18:09.39 | pjezek | Hi, I would like to reopen bug 0010332, I'm observing same symptoms in trunk-r136787 (retransmiting SIP/OK, even if is't ACKed by other party), because I'm not original reporter, I need bug marshal to do it. |
| 18:22.02 | lmadsen | M10332 |
| 18:22.04 | MuffinMan | [closed] [Asterisk] Channels/chan_sip/Interoperability 0010332: SIP - ACK not processed, 200 OK retransmitted reported by rudinsky (Karma: neutral) http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=10332 |
| 18:22.07 | lmadsen | pjezek: I will reopen for you |
| 18:23.04 | lmadsen | pjezek: done -- please add your comments today if you can. Thanks! |
| 18:39.02 | pjezek | comment added, relevant packet dump uploaded, thanks. |
| 18:42.35 | lmadsen | thanks for the info! |
| 18:43.35 | lmadsen | pjezek: also, I should have asked this first, but are you seeing this happening because of the change in this bug? |
| 18:47.26 | pjezek | no, it have only similar symptoms and I don't like to open duplicate bugreport |
| 18:56.28 | pjezek | added note about potentional relation to bugreport 0012708, SIP/OK retransmits starts appearing after that change |
| 19:02.01 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs atis_work (n=atis_wor@193.238.212.171) |
| 19:16.26 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs jack_sparo (n=eddy@81-208-91-225.ip.fastwebnet.it) |
| 19:18.24 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs ibercom (i=581f8717@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-3530d71aed9f7389) |
| 19:33.39 | lmadsen | pjezek: I can understand that, but I think since this may be a similar bug, but not caused by the original bug, the ideal situation would have been to open a new bug and just relate them to the existing bugs |
| 19:33.51 | lmadsen | but thank you for not wanting to just open new bugs |
| 19:59.27 | *** part/#asterisk-bugs rathaus2 (n=rathaus@212-150-194-226.barak.net.il) |
| 20:01.52 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs atis_work (n=atis_wor@193.238.212.171) |
| 20:15.33 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs shido6 (n=shido6@209.114.208.192) |
| 20:18.29 | pjezek | lmadsen: ok, should I then, open new bugreport for this issue? it's no problem for me... |
| 20:19.55 | lmadsen | pjezek: ummmm... ya, I think lets open a new issue and I'll re-close the original issue |
| 20:21.00 | pjezek | ok |
| 20:23.14 | lmadsen | let me know when you get that far |
| 20:35.50 | pjezek | new bugreport #0013287 created, so you can reclose #0010332, thanks |
| 21:02.26 | *** join/#asterisk-bugs atis_work (n=atis_wor@193.238.212.171) |
| 21:10.46 | lmadsen | pjezek: thanks! |
| 22:40.10 | mvanbaak | how long do we keep bugs open that are waiting for feedback ? |
| 22:40.47 | seanbright | 21 and 1/2 days |
| 22:40.56 | mvanbaak | there's a bug assigned to me that I asked feedback on, and Corydon76-[(dig)|(lap)] asked for response as well |
| 22:41.00 | mvanbaak | but still nothing |
| 22:41.07 | seanbright | how long ago? |
| 22:41.09 | *** part/#asterisk-bugs ibercom (i=581f8717@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-3530d71aed9f7389) |
| 22:42.00 | mvanbaak | 11 days |
| 22:42.19 | mvanbaak | I asked a month ago |
| 22:42.28 | mvanbaak | and Corydon76 asked again 11 days ago |
| 22:42.50 | mvanbaak | just want to be sure we waited long enough before closing it |
| 22:43.02 | seanbright | give him/her a full 2 weeks (3 more days) |
| 22:43.04 | seanbright | that's my thought. |
| 22:43.22 | mvanbaak | they reported against chan_skinny 1.4.18, but chan_skinny in trunk is totally different |
| 22:43.30 | mvanbaak | so we asked for feedback on trunk |
| 22:43.33 | mvanbaak | nothing .... |
| 22:44.10 | seanbright | maybe they can't run trunk for one reason or another |
| 22:44.21 | mvanbaak | at least they can report that back |
| 22:44.28 | seanbright | you expect a lot :) |
| 22:44.41 | mvanbaak | yup ;) |
| 22:44.52 | mvanbaak | 'can you test this in current trunk?' |
| 22:45.01 | mvanbaak | 'no, because this is a production system' |
| 22:45.03 | mvanbaak | 'ok' |
| 22:45.42 | mvanbaak | but we cant port the whole linkedlist handling changes that went into trunk back to 1.4 |
| 22:46.29 | mvanbaak | and, running chan_skinny 1.4.18 in production is,...... limited |
| 22:47.42 | seanbright | i'd give it a couple more days, maybe add a note that if you don't get feedback in 72 hours you will close the bug |
| 22:48.39 | mvanbaak | done |
| 22:48.41 | mvanbaak | thanks |