The problem is we don't know for sure that the BU is doing that and if we review bugtoolkit on monday it could be changed on tuesday. Reviewing defects in a release notes file is more assuring.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Brian Meade <bmead...@vt.edu> wrote: > I do agree it's annoying that they're not listed anymore in the release > notes. The bright side is at least this forces the BU to make sure all of > the resolved/open bugs for that version actually have the correct versions > documented in the bug search tool. > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Ryan Huff <ryanh...@outlook.com> wrote: > >> #truth >> >> Area that could really be improved >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:05:43 -0400 >> From: jsteinb...@gmail.com >> To: erick...@gmail.com >> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions >> CC: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >> >> >> 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" <erick...@gmail.com> 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 <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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ 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
