On 12/10/2010 05:49 PM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > On 12/10/2010 04:18 PM, sean darcy wrote: >> On 12/10/2010 05:01 PM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> Well, just to beat this dead horse more than it deserves, the point is >> that the regression in 1.6.2 was known, and fixed, on November 22. In >> other words, the day before rc1 was even announced. >> https://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=18185#129038 > > But the 1.6.2.15-rc1 tag was made on 2010-11-15, one week earlier. > Granted, a one week delay between the tag being made and being announced > is a bit excessive, but it still completely explains why the fix was not > in -rc1. > > The 1.6.2.15 release was made on 2010-12-02, which certainly indicates > that not being aware of this regression and getting the fix into the > release is something the release management team needs to look into. At > a minimum, this issue being fixed on the 22nd should have prompted an > -rc2 release, with this issue being listed as a 'blocker' for the > eventual 1.6.2.15 release. In fact, this issue was known about for about > three weeks before 1.6.2.15-rc1 was made, so I'd suggest that the -rc > shouldn't have even been made with this outstanding. There was a > breakdown in the process somewhere. > Very graciously said. As I said before, the digium team does a great job. Even Homer nodded.
sean -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- 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
