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

Tue Oct 6 11:17:30 EDT 2015

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 <bmeade90 at 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 <ryanhuff at outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> #truth
>>
>> Area that could really be improved
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:05:43 -0400
>> From: jsteinberg at gmail.com
>> To: erickbee at gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Understanding a Defect's Affected Versions
>> CC: cisco-voip at 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" <erickbee at 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 <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
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151006/8dd12324/attachment.html>