On 05/06/99 14:56:52 you wrote:
So it looks like I'm going to have to downgrade to 5.2.1P2 from 5.2.2 to avoid panics from assertions in the netbios name service.. Patches for 5.2.2 are somewhere in the indeterminate future.. (all of this for bug 12712, which for some reason isn't listed in Bugs Online)
I agree... many bugs are missing from Bugs Online and the bugs are not updated often enough. Perhaps the people making patch releases don't have full power to update Bugs Online as part of the patch making and bug reporting process.
This brings up one of the points that Tom (?) was ranting on a week or so ago.. Why release 5.2.2, a minor bug-patch revision, that don't incorporate patches from its predecessor?
My guess is something like this.
When 5.2.1 was released, naturally 5.2.2 was already being considered and worked on. Shortly thereafter it probably went into testing.
During 5.2.2 testing, some bugs cropped up in 5.2.1. Various patch releases were created to fix some of the problems. However, they did not get as extensive testing as a full "dotdot" release. No doubt someone wanted to roll the P2 patch into 5.2.2, but someone else said it was already too late and doing that would require testing all over again. This was probably unnaceptable for some political reason - anything from something minor like not wanting to slip on the schedule to something major like something in 5.2.2 that some big customer needs and said big customer not being likely to encounter bug 12712.
Perhaps I shoud've called support first, but I just brought these 760's online with 5.2.2, under the apparently false impression that I was getting all the up-to-date fixes.. Was there an erratta for 5.2.2 that I missed that said "THE FOLLOWING IS STILL BROKEN:"?
Would be nice if they had listed known bugs in 5.2.2.
Bruce
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..
-
kg -
sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com