[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) <rratliff at 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 First, the bugs affecting a version is out of date pretty much before the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 up with the list that was then out of date immediately.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 <erickbee at 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 <jsteinberg at 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 <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
> >>>
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151008/4c5b2bb4/attachment.html>