Attention is currently required from: dexter, laforge, pespin.

Patch set 6:Code-Review +1

3 comments:

File src/libosmo-mgcp-client/mgcp_client.c:
- Patch Set #3, Line 1323: urn -
  I'm not following you here. […]
  I mean: not return -EINVAL, instead skip the PRINTF("c=IN").
  From below comment about your preference, i gather that you don't agree with this point. I think you're wrong, but i'm fine to live with your choice so one day i can say "i told you so" =)
  anyway, here are my reasons, if you'd like to know.
  there are different causes for not having a valid address. this patch handles the causes differently:
  - when the flag is not set, omit the addr and send the rest.
  - when the flag is set, but the addr is empty, fail the entire message, do not send anything.
  i think it would be less complexity and more stable to just always omit and send the rest, no matter what the cause is for not having a valid IP address.
  that way we don't obscurely fail sending a message at all if some flag combination is set weirdly. Why do those flags even exist, if the value itself can indicate presence or not...
- Patch Set #3, Line 1339: et
  I prefer the way it is now. […]
  Done
- Patch Set #3, Line 1353: codecs
  Whichever gets first into master makes the other one rebase it, I don't really care and it's fine ea […]
  ok, the other patch isn't ready yet until it has backwards compat, so go ahead. would be good if a C test covers this, to make sure it stays intact.

To view, visit change 35152. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.