10.5.2.12028-1 is an Engineering Special which uses a different numbering scheme. I thought the ReadMe used to show what ES the SU was built off of but having trouble finding it.
SU2/SU2a were most likely built off of older engineering specials than 10.5.2.12028-1. The higher release thing really only works in the case of published versions on cisco.com. On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 11:34 PM, Erick Bergquist <erick...@gmail.com> wrote: > Some bugs, like CSCuu58142 effecting single number reach doesn't seem > to follow higher versions contain the fix methodology. > > Bug toolkit says this is fixed in 10.5.2.12028-1 but 10.5.2 SU2, SU2a > (10.5.2.12900 and 10.5.2.12901) don't contain the bug fix per TAC and > going over the release notes for SU2, SU2a. > > I need to use the 10.5.2.12028-1 ES or latest ES 10.5.2.13039-1. > Currently debating which route I'm going to go or wait out for SU3 or > until we upgrade to 11.x. This SNR bug is effecting some users about > every 1-2 months. Workaround is to disable SNR on their remote > destination profile and re-enable it. > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) > <rratl...@cisco.com> wrote: > > it's up to the discretion of the bug author. <-------------- > > > > > > This means it’s accuracy varies greatly by product and even bug author. > For > > UCM you should always assume you are vulnerable if the fixed-in version > is > > higher than what you are currently running unless the bug description > > clearly states otherwise or the feature impacted by the bug doesn’t > exist in > > your version. > > > > -Ryan > > > > On Sep 29, 2015, at 2:25 PM, Anthony Holloway > > <avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > In reference to this defect: > > > > https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuv45722 > > > > Can you help me understand what this means as far as all affected > versions? > > > > On the surface, it would appear that it's only affecting 9.1(2). > However, > > with a fixed in version being way out in 11.5, that would also indicate > to > > me that an upgrade to 10.5(2)SU2a, as an example, would not fix this > issue. > > > > Does Cisco imply all versions affected between the listed affected > versions > > and the fixed in version? Or, should this defect list all affected > > versions? > > > > I cannot recall what I've heard about this in the past. I'm almost > guessing > > there's no exact science to it, and it's up to the discretion of the bug > > author. > > > > Thanks for your help. > > _______________________________________________ > > cisco-voip mailing list > > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > cisco-voip mailing list > > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-voip mailing list > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >
_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip