I agree... many bugs are missing from Bugs Online and the bugs are not updated often enough.
I've since been told that engineering reviews each bug before marking them to be available online. While this strikes me as sensible enough, the fact that this particular bug, which results in a panic/reboot and has already been patched, hasn't been 'reviewed' strikes me as peculiar.
When 5.2.1 was released, naturally 5.2.2 was already being considered and worked on. Shortly thereafter it probably went into testing.
Yeah. I got the official line, which is that *[PD]* releases originate from the sustaining group, whereas bonafide releases come from engineering (who then is responsible for incorporating the patch fixes).
While the logic behind this is reasonable, it ends up distorting the customer perception.. Having to explain to management why we were going to an older version to fix a bug is always a daunting task.
There's a median there to be struck between incorporating present patches and actually being able to get software out the door, but I would gladly see the feeping creaturism scaled back in the name of robustness.
Would be nice if they had listed known bugs in 5.2.2.
Yep..
In the end though, I must admit that I hold NetApp to a higher standard than any other vendor I work with.. They have done such a phenomenal job thus far, its a shame to see them slowly falling into rank with the majority of the industry. Oh well. Off to see about that downgrade....
..kg..