Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Anthony Holloway]

On further review of the release notes and the direct links to the bug
search tool, I actually like it this way better.  I did not submit
feedback, for what it's worth.  Thanks for the insight Ryan.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Ryan Ratliff (rratliff) <rratl...@cisco.com>
wrote:

> The bug info was pulled from Release Notes last year for two reasons.
>
> First, the bugs affecting a version is out of date pretty much before the
> tech writer has finished writing up the list.
> Second, the people that write the release notes spent a ton of time coming
> up with the list that was then out of date immediately.
>
> The Bug Search Tool was supposed to be the answer, and for various and
> sundry reasons there are some gaps that make it work well for some products
> and horribly for others.
>
> I worked with the phone teams quite a bit on this because it caused a LOT
> of complaints and we finally settled on publishing the fixed defects in the
> release notes and pointing to the Bug Search Tool for open bugs.
>
> -Ryan
>
> On Oct 6, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Erick Bergquist <erick...@gmail.com> 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 <jsteinb...@gmail.com>
> 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 <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.
> &g

Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Brian Meade]

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
> >

Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Anthony Holloway]

Hit send too soon...one last thing for Erick.

You can also export up to 10,000 defects as a spreadsheet:

"You can export all the bug details from your search to a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet so you can view them later at your convenience. Presently, up
to 10,000 bugs can be exported at a time to an Excel spreadsheet."
Source: http://www.cisco.com/web/applicat/cbsshelp/help.html#sort

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Anthony Holloway <
avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 <erick...@gmail.com>
> 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 <jsteinb...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <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.
>> >>

Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)]

The bug info was pulled from Release Notes last year for two reasons.

First, the bugs affecting a version is out of date pretty much before the tech 
writer has finished writing up the list.  
Second, the people that write the release notes spent a ton of time coming up 
with the list that was then out of date immediately.

The Bug Search Tool was supposed to be the answer, and for various and sundry 
reasons there are some gaps that make it work well for some products and 
horribly for others.

I worked with the phone teams quite a bit on this because it caused a LOT of 
complaints and we finally settled on publishing the fixed defects in the 
release notes and pointing to the Bug Search Tool for open bugs. 

-Ryan

On Oct 6, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Erick Bergquist <erick...@gmail.com> 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 <jsteinb...@gmail.com> 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 <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 relea

Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Anthony Holloway]

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 <erick...@gmail.com> 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 <jsteinb...@gmail.com>
> 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 <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.

Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Justin Steinberg]

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"  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  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 
> 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)
> >>  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
> >> >  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

Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Erick Bergquist]

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)
 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
>  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

Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Brian Meade]

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  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)
>  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
> >  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

Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Erick Bergquist]

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  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  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)
>>  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
>> >  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

Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Ryan Ratliff (rratliff)]

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 
> 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] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions

[Anthony Holloway]

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