[pca] 118666-36 & 118667-36

[Nishimura, Scott L (ESS)]

So maybe they should call their patches "Mostly harmless"...   : )

-----Original Message-----
From: pca-bounces at lists.univie.ac.at [mailto:pca-bounces at lists.univie.ac.at] On Behalf Of Glen Gunselman
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 8:24 AM
To: PCA (Patch Check Advanced) Discussion
Subject: EXT :Re: [pca] 118666-36 & 118667-36

I think there is another just as plausible explanation.

It appears to me that more and more the "engineers" who make the changes are less and less able to articulate the reason for those changes. Without some other supporting evidence I would treat them as trivial.

If the vendor expects us to treat the patches as important, then they need to be responsible and tell us so.   (At times we must justify an outage and we need Oracle's support in doing so.)

Perhaps the description, instead of just saying "problem with" it could say "import problem with" (just thinking of the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy update ...)  :)


Have a good day,
Glen

-----Original Message-----
From: pca-bounces at lists.univie.ac.at [mailto:pca-bounces at lists.univie.ac.at] On Behalf Of Martin Paul
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:05 AM
To: Glen Gunselman; PCA (Patch Check Advanced) Discussion
Subject: Re: [pca] 118666-36 & 118667-36

Jeff Wieland wrote:
> How are we supposed to figure out what priority to give to installing
> a patch when the README says:

Don O'Malley recently a long reply to a similar query by Dennis Clarke. My
interpretation was that bug reports often get shortened to "problem with XXX"
when Oracle doesn't want to give out information about security issues.

So the conclusion would be that any "problem with XXX" in a patch README means
"high priority". No idea whether that's a reasonable approach.

Martin.