[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 <bmeade90 at 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 <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
>
>