On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Tony Graziano
wrote:
> versioning the repo is perhaps the most straightforward method in my mind.
> an archive of the initial release any any patches that are not the most
> recent version.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
The policy now is exactly what you'd fin
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Kitchin
(public/usenet)
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 2:02 PM
To: sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Bug fix release update: sipXecs 4.4.0 has been
updated
On 5/12/2011 4:01 PM, Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet) wrote:
On 5/12/2011 3:52 PM, Todd Hodgen wrote:
I know this entails more work, but for sanity sake, would it not make
sense to have a log kept that shows all patches that are applied to a
given release. From a troubleshooting standpoint,
On 5/12/2011 3:52 PM, Todd Hodgen wrote:
I know this entails more work, but for sanity sake, would it not make
sense to have a log kept that shows all patches that are applied to a
given release. From a troubleshooting standpoint, it would be nice to
be able to open a file that shows what ha
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
[mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Hubler
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 1:38 PM
To: Discussion list for users of sipXecs software
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Bug fix release update: sipXecs 4.4.0 has been
updated
On
On 5/12/2011 3:37 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> I'm willing to come up with easy instructions for how folks can keep
> local copies.
>
Thanks.
> re:ISO
> I might change my mind, but ISO are not updated with new RPMs. People
> would need to be in the habit of updating after installing if they
> want
versioning the repo is perhaps the most straightforward method in my mind.
an archive of the initial release any any patches that are not the most
recent version.
On May 12, 2011 4:37 PM, "Douglas Hubler" wrote:
___
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@lis
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet)
wrote:
> On 5/12/2011 3:20 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
>>> I
>>> do wonder why they are not archived in another repo (the previous 4.4.0-192
>>> packages. It makes the onus on the superadmin to have saved it as its no
>>> longer availa
On 5/12/2011 3:20 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
>> I
>> do wonder why they are not archived in another repo (the previous 4.4.0-192
>> packages. It makes the onus on the superadmin to have saved it as its no
>> longer available.
> Added items #6 to release policy...
> http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display
On 5/12/2011 2:15 PM, Tony Graziano wrote:
Correct.
You could also check it against
http://download.sipfoundry.org/pub/sipXecs/4.4.0/CentOS_5/x86_64/
So, in this case I would just need to know that some packages went from
192 to 202?
I completely agree about keeping the old versions. I would a
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Tony Graziano
wrote:
> devel packages. So I think it's only 10 that were pushed out in the patch.
yep
To a certain degree, you have to trust yum is configured correctly and
you tell you if you have the latest. Paranoid admins (which sometimes
includes me) often
Correct.
You could also check it against
http://download.sipfoundry.org/pub/sipXecs/4.4.0/CentOS_5/x86_64/
You will see only a handful of packages bumped from 4.4.0-192 to 4.4.0-202.
In a normal production environment you do not install or use the debug or
devel packages. So I think it's only 10
On 5/10/2011 11:24 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> This is a notice in accordance with bug fix release policy
>
> http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/sipXecs/Bug+Fix+Release+Policy
>
Can someone give me a quick way to confirm I have these patches installed?
I looked at the wiki page, but I don't se
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Matthew Kitchin (public/usenet)
wrote:
> On 5/10/2011 11:24 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
>> This is a notice in accordance with bug fix release policy
>>
>> http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/sipXecs/Bug+Fix+Release+Policy
>>
> If it was determined one of the bug
On 5/10/2011 11:24 PM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> This is a notice in accordance with bug fix release policy
>
> http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/sipXecs/Bug+Fix+Release+Policy
>
If it was determined one of the bugfixes caused an issue, is there a way
to back it out?
> Notes
> =
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Dave Deutschman
wrote:
> +1
http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-9609
FYI: It would be very hard to base this on context of bug fixes.
___
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List Archive: http://li
update: sipXecs 4.4.0 has been
updated
On 5/11/2011 7:49 AM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Tony Graziano
> wrote:
>> Please note: this will repush profiles to end user devices as well as
>> reboot them, so shedule/apply accordingly.
> Would eve
On 5/11/2011 7:49 AM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Tony Graziano
> wrote:
>> Please note: this will repush profiles to end user devices as well as reboot
>> them, so shedule/apply accordingly.
> Would everyone agree we should change this so it only happens on major
> v
Correct.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Tony Graziano wrote:
> template "or the resulting config file"...
>
> meaning if incorrect values are corrected by result of the patch without an
> actual change to the template, then of course the phones need the new
> config...
>
>
> On Wed, May 11, 20
template "or the resulting config file"...
meaning if incorrect values are corrected by result of the patch without an
actual change to the template, then of course the phones need the new
config...
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Michael Picher wrote:
> That would make sense to me.
>
> I gues
That would make sense to me.
I guess we just need to note in the release notes if there's a phone
template change that might require that the admin re-publish profiles.
Mike
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Tony Graziano
> wrote:
> > Pl
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Tony Graziano
wrote:
> Please note: this will repush profiles to end user devices as well as reboot
> them, so shedule/apply accordingly.
Would everyone agree we should change this so it only happens on major
version upgrades?
_
Please note: this will repush profiles to end user devices as well as reboot
them, so shedule/apply accordingly.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Douglas Hubler wrote:
> This is a notice in accordance with bug fix release policy
>
> http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/sipXecs/Bug+Fix+Release+P
This is a notice in accordance with bug fix release policy
http://wiki.sipfoundry.org/display/sipXecs/Bug+Fix+Release+Policy
Notes
=
- ** No security updates in this update **
- ISO has *not* been rebuilt as decided in release policy. Yum update
after installation i
24 matches
Mail list logo
