What are the version strings for the original Patch 005 and the revised Patch 005?
-Mike On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Easter, David <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > > Ø Ok…so original Patch 5 is still good, if you are willing to deal with > the license stuff problems. > > > > That is correct. And it’s just the audit file/report – not licensing in > general. Licensing still works fine with or without any patches. > > > > -David J. Easter > > Sr. Product Manager, Enterprise Service Management > > BMC Software, Inc. > > > > The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in > this E-mail do not necessarily reflect those of BMC Software, Inc. My > voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a > spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software, > Inc. > > > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *LJ LongWing > *Sent:* Friday, July 09, 2010 12:53 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: AR System 7.5.00 Patch 005 and 7.1.00 Patch 010 > > > > ** > > Ok…so original Patch 5 is still good, if you are willing to deal with the > license stuff problems. > > > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Easter, David > *Sent:* Friday, July 09, 2010 1:28 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: AR System 7.5.00 Patch 005 and 7.1.00 Patch 010 > > > > ** > > While I don’t disagree, operational issues internally do not enable the > issuance of an externally visible “005A” or such in terms of patch numbering > at this time. However, the version string within the executable does > change, so you can tell which version you have by running the > *version*command against the server binary. > > > > The pull is of the revised Patch 005, although the original Patch 005 was > itself pulled to include the license audit corrections that then caused this > additional issue. > > > > -David J. Easter > > Sr. Product Manager, Enterprise Service Management > > BMC Software, Inc. > > > > The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in > this E-mail do not necessarily reflect those of BMC Software, Inc. My > voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a > spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software, > Inc. > > > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Rick Cook > *Sent:* Friday, July 09, 2010 11:19 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: AR System 7.5.00 Patch 005 and 7.1.00 Patch 010 > > > > ** Indeed. I appreciate how BMC has improved their release processes over > the past few years, but this practice of re-using patch numbers is a major > no-no from a Release Mgmt. perspective. At least name them 5a, 5b... or > 5.1, 5.2... or something. > > Rick > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:13 PM, LJ LongWing <[email protected]> wrote: > > David, > Is this a pull of the initial Patch 5, or the revised Patch 5 that came out > recently?....and why do we again have a scenario where we have two of the > same patch version running around? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > _attend WWRUG10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > > _attend WWRUG10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > > _attend WWRUG10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > _attend WWRUG10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
