I agree with that. It's too hard to know how to search the bug toolkit for fixes in a certain version. On Oct 5, 2015 11:54 PM, "Erick Bergquist" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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) > >> <[email protected]> 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 > >> > <[email protected]> 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 > >> > [email protected] > >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > cisco-voip mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> cisco-voip mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-voip mailing list > [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >
_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
