On 12/10/2010 03:26 PM, sean darcy wrote: > On 12/10/2010 02:57 PM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: >> On 12/10/2010 01:45 PM, sean darcy wrote: >> >>> This was supposedly fixed in 1.6.2 on November 22, 2010. So isn't the >>> fix in 1.6.2.15, released 12/8? >>> >>> In any event, that bug has been declared fixed, so you can't add a note. >> >> Not necessarily, no. Releases go through a 'release candidate' phase for >> a week (or two, sometimes three) before being declared 'ready', so fixes >> made before the release date aren't necessarily included. The changelog >> included in the release will always indicate what revisions are included >> in it, though. >> > 1.6.2.15-rc1 was released, or at least announced, on November 23. In any > event, it'd seem that the purpose of rc's should be to catch regressions > like this one.
That is indeed the purpose; was the issue reported prior to 1.6.2.15 graduating to a full release? If not, that means nobody saw it, which is unfortunate, but given that it's not realistic to expect hundreds of users to test release candidates in real-world scenarios, it's what happens. This is also why the Asterisk test suite continues to grow, in order to be able to catch regressions of this type before they even get into a release candidate. If there's not an existing test that could catch this problem, then that's an area where some help would be quite welcome. -- Kevin P. Fleming Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA skype: kpfleming | jabber: [email protected] Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
