On 12/10/2010 04:18 PM, sean darcy wrote: > On 12/10/2010 05:01 PM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: >> On 12/10/2010 03:26 PM, sean darcy wrote: >>> On 12/10/2010 02:57 PM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote: >>>> On 12/10/2010 01:45 PM, sean darcy wrote: >>>> >>>>> This was supposedly fixed in 1.6.2 on November 22, 2010. So isn't the >>>>> fix in 1.6.2.15, released 12/8? >>>>> >>>>> In any event, that bug has been declared fixed, so you can't add a note. >>>> >>>> Not necessarily, no. Releases go through a 'release candidate' phase for >>>> a week (or two, sometimes three) before being declared 'ready', so fixes >>>> made before the release date aren't necessarily included. The changelog >>>> included in the release will always indicate what revisions are included >>>> in it, though. >>>> >>> 1.6.2.15-rc1 was released, or at least announced, on November 23. In any >>> event, it'd seem that the purpose of rc's should be to catch regressions >>> like this one. >> >> That is indeed the purpose; was the issue reported prior to 1.6.2.15 >> graduating to a full release? If not, that means nobody saw it, which is >> unfortunate, but given that it's not realistic to expect hundreds of >> users to test release candidates in real-world scenarios, it's what happens. >> >> This is also why the Asterisk test suite continues to grow, in order to >> be able to catch regressions of this type before they even get into a >> release candidate. If there's not an existing test that could catch this >> problem, then that's an area where some help would be quite welcome. >> > > Well, just to beat this dead horse more than it deserves, the point is > that the regression in 1.6.2 was known, and fixed, on November 22. In > other words, the day before rc1 was even announced. > https://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=18185#129038
But the 1.6.2.15-rc1 tag was made on 2010-11-15, one week earlier. Granted, a one week delay between the tag being made and being announced is a bit excessive, but it still completely explains why the fix was not in -rc1. The 1.6.2.15 release was made on 2010-12-02, which certainly indicates that not being aware of this regression and getting the fix into the release is something the release management team needs to look into. At a minimum, this issue being fixed on the 22nd should have prompted an -rc2 release, with this issue being listed as a 'blocker' for the eventual 1.6.2.15 release. In fact, this issue was known about for about three weeks before 1.6.2.15-rc1 was made, so I'd suggest that the -rc shouldn't have even been made with this outstanding. There was a breakdown in the process somewhere. -- Kevin P. Fleming Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA skype: kpfleming | jabber: kflem...@digium.com Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs: http://www.asterisk.org/hello asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users