* Rainer Orth (ro at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de) wrote: > Renaud Manus writes: > > > Agreed - I haven't followed the thread from the beginning but the > > subject clearly specifies S10U5. > > True, no argument from me here. > > > There are people working actively on fixing LU bugs for S10. I believe > > large fixes will be integrated into s10u8. > > That's great to hear. I had expected that those fixes would be developed > in nevada first and only afterwards backported to S10, but given that LU is > about to be replaced, things might be different here.
Things are definitely different. You won't see any fixes going into LU on Nevada. LU on Solaris 10 is a different story. > > Filing bugs doesn't guarantee they will ever be fixed. But if you have > > a support contract, you can still get those bugs escalated to get them > > fixed especially if they are critical for your production. > > Understood. Only in this case I had the impression that the severity of > the bug was fully understood and even so it was closed as `won't fix'. > I've just checked my records and found that the RE couldn't reproduce it on > S10 for some reason (I've experienced it several times since) and thus > closed it, while the nevada CR is still open, though unlikely to be fixed > due to lack of resources. > > The bug in question (CR 6774954) is critical for anyone using LU on SPARC. > It has now been reopened, and I may well add a call record using our > premium contract. That CR relates to LU on Solaris Nevada. It's not going to gain any traction by adding a call record. What would gain traction is if the issue is reproducible on Solaris 10 (which apparently isn't the case according to the notes). But, if you can reproduce it on Solaris 10 there's at least a chance it will get addressed for Solaris 10. There's *no* chance of it being addressed for SXCE/Nevada. Cheers, -- Glenn
