I am going to submit feedback right now as well. However, I will say that you can apply the same arguments against defects listed in the release notes as you did with having to use the BST.
I.e., Who knows if the Release Notes Author(s) is/are including all of the bugs or leaving some out. Also, on the topic of auto-loading content upon scroll...that's a terrible idea for this web tool. It's great for browsing Pinterest...I heard...from a friend. Thankfully, Cisco is already working on removing that feature and allowing us to use page numbers instead: "Pagination of search results is not supported currently. This functionality will be available in a future release." Source: http://www.cisco.com/web/applicat/cbsshelp/help.html#sort On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Erick Bergquist <[email protected]> wrote: > For example, on the latest UCCX 10.6.1 SU1 release notes they don't > list the caveats fixed and provide a link to the bug search tool. I > sent an email to the feedback link provided in the release notes > document and got an email back this morning from cisco thanking me for > my feedback and explaining their direction and that they will take my > comments into consideration and possibly add a poll. I would advise > others to send feedback using the methods in the documents to share > your opinion with the right people. > > I'm not opposed to using bug search tool for viewing the caveats, it > just doesn't provide a nice list format to view all the resolved/open > caveats with one line summary like in the document.If you scroll down > it keeps updating the display with more bugs so you can't really print > them easily either. And who knows if the search is returning all the > bugs or leaving some out. I also liked seeing the list in the release > notes to compare against bug toolkit results or searching a release > note document for a bug ID to make sure that release indeed included > the fix before applying it on a client/etc. > > > Erick > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Justin Steinberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> #truth > >>> > >>> Area that could really be improved > >>> > >>> ________________________________ > >>> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:05:43 -0400 > >>> From: [email protected] > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions > >>> CC: [email protected] > >>> > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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
