I'm also not a fan of the newer release notes not including a list of the Resolved Bugs, but a link to bug search tool...
That leaves it up to us to find what bugs were fixed or hoping bug search tool returns them all, plus not a nice list/summary to glance through. On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Brian Meade <bmead...@vt.edu> wrote: > 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