[asterisk-users] 1.6.2.14 > 1.6.2.15: blind transfer works but not Xfer on aastra

[sean darcy]

On 12/10/2010 05:49 PM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> 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.
>
Very graciously said. As I said before, the digium team does a great 
job. Even Homer nodded.

sean