[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 <erickbee at 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)
> <rratliff at 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-voip at 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 at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-voip mailing list
> > cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
> >
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20151005/cbf5d040/attachment.html>