> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 6:09 PM > To: Sidney Markowitz > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: create "SpamAssassin Rules Project" > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Sidney Markowitz writes: > > Justin Mason wrote: > > > I dunno -- that seems pretty scary. Also, it doesn't fix > the problem > > > where you have a meta rule in the change which relies on > a predicate > > > from a previous change, at all. > > > > I meant that instead of attaching rules they attach > pathname/revision# > > pairs, not a single revision number for the whole group. > But I agree that > > seems scary. Also, it makes a mess of the svn repository if > it can't be all > > checked out and used as a whole. > > > > 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?
Well...we generally have only 1 person working on a certain 'set' of rules. Others may help, but when it comes to the testing.cf file, one person is responsible. (Usually whoever volunteered for that "set". Set might be a bad word. More like "Idea set". As many people will commit to something like the HTML rules. But whatever a specific new HTML rule is being worked on, is basically "signed out" by one person. Does that make sense? :) And the list privacy issue is important. So much so that we have actually moved the entire SARE list once already. Possibility of a leak/mole. Better safe then sorry. I would also suggest experation times for non contributors. Lurkers don't work for lists like this. (Heh, I'm going to hear about this froma few ninjas, I can feel it!) --Chris (Smaller pads for NHL Goalies!!!!)
