> > Dealing with metarules and modifications to them presents a problem in
any
> > case. How do we deal with person X submitting a modification to metarule
A
> > and proposed rule A1, while person Y submits a different modification to
> > metarule A and proposed rule A2 while person Z submits proposed rule A3
that
> > relies on the existing version of metarule A?
>
> well, good question. SARE guys?
On thinking about it, I can't recall that many times that people have been
mucking directly with existing metas, so pretty much this hasn't come up.
It isn't that unusual to make a test meta that depends on existing rules as
well as new rules. Under these conditions a collision could occur of
course, and probably has once or twice. Of course, this is less likely to
happen in one-off masschecks than in a full combined masscheck.
But when testing new metas it is pretty typical to tag the subrules with a T
or some such so that the scores will show on the various parts. So you
really aren't necessarily testing the actual existing rule, since you have a
renamed version local to your file.
Also, many of us tend to name initial rules with out name/initials/etc
somewhere in the rule name, so collisions on names are very unlikely. The
good rules get renamed after they have been found to be worth publishing.
Loren
