Theo Van Dinter wrote, On 17/12/07 9:38 AM:
> Wow. This has sat around for ages! :(
>
> It doesn't look like anything got committed to fix these issues, but we should
> get that done and get 3.1.10 out. Sidney, do you still have the code you were
> working on for this? I
Wow. This has sat around for ages! :(
It doesn't look like anything got committed to fix these issues, but we should
get that done and get 3.1.10 out. Sidney, do you still have the code you were
working on for this? I didn't see any open bugs w/ milestone of 3.1.10, and
3.1.11
Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> On 8/19/2007 8:56 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
>> Doc Schneider wrote:
>>> Are we still planning on releasing SpamAssassin 3.1.10?
>>>
>>> Just curious,
>>>
>>>
>> I think so.. Sydney made a call for Theo
On 8/19/2007 8:56 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
Doc Schneider wrote:
Are we still planning on releasing SpamAssassin 3.1.10?
Just curious,
I think so.. Sydney made a call for Theo to make a new release candidate
a week ago (8/11), but nothing happened.
I'm +1 on trying to make a new one.
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 08:56:24PM -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> I think so.. Sydney made a call for Theo to make a new release candidate
> a week ago (8/11), but nothing happened.
Yeah, I got the mails, just been so busy I haven't been able to do anything
with them. We should do a 3.1
Doc Schneider wrote:
> Are we still planning on releasing SpamAssassin 3.1.10?
>
> Just curious,
>
>
I think so.. Sydney made a call for Theo to make a new release candidate
a week ago (8/11), but nothing happened.
I'm +1 on trying to make a new one.. the SVN head plus patch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Are we still planning on releasing SpamAssassin 3.1.10?
Just curious,
- --
-Doc
Penguins: Do it on the ice.
8:44am up 4 days, 16:55, 17 users, load average: 0.18, 0.30, 0.37
SARE HQ http://www.rulesemporium.com/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
Theo, the bugs that were blocking the 3.1.10 release have now been
cleared. Do you want to take another shot at producing the tarballs?
-- sidney
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> Doc Schneider wrote, On 10/8/07 12:18 PM:
>> Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>>> Shall we try again? 3.1.10 was ready for release but got blocked at the
>>> last moment by bug 5574. That now needs 2
Matt Kettler wrote, On 10/8/07 12:35 PM:
> Where can I find a version of the patch that applies to the previous
> candidate 3.1.10 tarball? (or an updated tarball)
Whoops, that's right. I'll put together a new patch for 3.1 and attach
it to the bug report.
Sorry,
-- sidney
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> Shall we try again? 3.1.10 was ready for release but got blocked at the
> last moment by bug 5574. That now needs 2 more votes to commit to the
> 3.1 branch.
>
> -- sidney
>
>
Where can I find a version of the patch that applies to the prev
Doc Schneider wrote, On 10/8/07 12:18 PM:
> Sidney Markowitz wrote:
>> Shall we try again? 3.1.10 was ready for release but got blocked at the
>> last moment by bug 5574. That now needs 2 more votes to commit to the
>> 3.1 branch.
>
>> -- sidney
>
> +1
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> Shall we try again? 3.1.10 was ready for release but got blocked at the
> last moment by bug 5574. That now needs 2 more votes to commit to the
> 3.1 branch.
>
> -- sidney
+1
- --
-Doc
Penguins: Do it o
Shall we try again? 3.1.10 was ready for release but got blocked at the
last moment by bug 5574. That now needs 2 more votes to commit to the
3.1 branch.
-- sidney
Matt Kettler wrote, On 27/7/07 1:53 PM:
> I just applied this to the 3.1.10 pre-release and ran my make test as root.
>
> The previous issue is gone, however now I get:
What OS and perl version are you running?
Let's continue discussion of your make test as root failure in
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote, On 17/7/07 1:07 PM:
>
>> I'm having trouble getting 3.1.10 to pass "make test" as root. Passes
>> just fine as a non-root user.
>>
>
> Matt, can you please verify that you can apply the patch against
Matt Kettler wrote, On 17/7/07 1:07 PM:
> I'm having trouble getting 3.1.10 to pass "make test" as root. Passes
> just fine as a non-root user.
Matt, can you please verify that you can apply the patch against the 3.1
branch that I attached to bug 5510, then the patches for bu
Justin Mason wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
Please do so Sidney. CPAN installs need to work as root. If the fixes
aren't backported the tests should at least be disabled.
I agree they need to be backported too. One thing though: shouldn't
users of "sudo cpan Mail::SpamAssassin" only g
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Hi --
> 3.1.10 tarballs are available for testing:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~felicity/3110/
>
> By the way: per ASF policies, only PMC member votes are binding for
> a release, but we encourage everyone to download, test, and report
> any
t;> However, I make that +1 with the strong recomendation that we need to
> >> get a 3.1.11 out sometime soon that actually builds properly under CPAN.
> >
> > No, 3.1.10 is not a security fix -- That was a copy and paste error by
> > Theo in the draft announcement. The
cleanly to the 3.1 branch. The fix
itself is fine, but there are some edits in the way of applying the
patch. I'll re-open bug 5510 and attach a new patch for 3.1.
The patches in bugs 5518 and 5529 do apply cleanly after 5510 is done.
I'll re-open the three of them targeted for 3.1.1
soon that actually builds properly under CPAN.
No, 3.1.10 is not a security fix -- That was a copy and paste error by
Theo in the draft announcement. The only bug fixes between 3.1.9 and
3.1.10 are the two minor ones that Theo listed. I think they were fixes
that Theo wanted in 3.1.9 but were
soon that actually builds properly under CPAN.
No, 3.1.10 is not a security fix -- That was a copy and paste error by
Theo in the draft announcement. The only bug fixes between 3.1.9 and
3.1.10 are the two minor ones that Theo listed. I think they were fixes
that Theo wanted in 3.1.9 but were
Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> Matt Kettler wrote, On 17/7/07 1:19 PM:
>
>> I'm having trouble getting 3.1.10 to pass "make test" as root. Passes
>> just fine as a non-root user.
>>
>> Looks like the spamd "tell" based tests are the ones failin
On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 01:41:38PM +1200, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> > Apache SpamAssassin 3.1.10 is now available! This is a maintenance and
> > security release of the 3.1.x branch.
>
> Is the reference to "security release" a copy and paste error?
Hrm.
Theo Van Dinter wrote, On 16/7/07 3:43 PM:
> Apache SpamAssassin 3.1.10 is now available! This is a maintenance and
> security release of the 3.1.x branch.
[...]
> 3.1.10 is a minor bug-fix release. The major highlights are:
Is the reference to "security release" a copy and paste error?
Matt Kettler wrote, On 17/7/07 1:19 PM:
> (sorry for the repost.. MUA screwed up and sent from the wrong address)
>
>
> Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>> Hi --
>> 3.1.10 tarballs are available for testing:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~felicity/3110/
>>
>&g
(sorry for the repost.. MUA screwed up and sent from the wrong address)
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Hi --
> 3.1.10 tarballs are available for testing:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~felicity/3110/
>
> By the way: per ASF policies, only PMC member votes are binding for
> a rele
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Builds and tests ok for me.
+1
Justin Mason wrote:
> by the way, minotaur is having hardware problems, apparently so this
> tarball may be hard to get at intermittently :(
>
> +1 from me
>
> --j.
>
> Theo Van Dinter wr
by the way, minotaur is having hardware problems, apparently so this
tarball may be hard to get at intermittently :(
+1 from me
--j.
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> Hi --
> 3.1.10 tarballs are available for testing:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~felicity/3110/
>
> By the way
Hi --
3.1.10 tarballs are available for testing:
http://people.apache.org/~felicity/3110/
By the way: per ASF policies, only PMC member votes are binding for
a release, but we encourage everyone to download, test, and report
any issues!
my vote: +1.
BTW: my proposed release announcement is as
31 matches
Mail list logo
