Re: 3.3.0 plans, what next?

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:17, Justin Mason wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:51, Warren Togami wrote: >> On 07/15/2009 06:41 AM, Justin Mason wrote: Do we have enough variety of users submitting nightly mass check data? >>> >>> we still need some more, I think. >>> >>> MSECS      SPAM%

Re: 3.3.0 plans, what next?

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:51, Warren Togami wrote: > On 07/15/2009 06:41 AM, Justin Mason wrote: >>> >>> Do we have enough variety of users submitting nightly mass check data? >> >> we still need some more, I think. >> >> MSECS      SPAM%     HAM%     S/O    RANK   SCORE  NAME WHO/AGE >> 0.0  

Re: 3.3.0 plans, what next?

On 07/15/2009 06:41 AM, Justin Mason wrote: Do we have enough variety of users submitting nightly mass check data? we still need some more, I think. MSECS SPAM% HAM% S/ORANK SCORE NAME WHO/AGE 0.0 46.7930 0.0431 0.9990.960.01 T_CN_URL 0.0 1.3699 0.

Re: 3.3.0 plans, what next?

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 04:14, Warren Togami wrote: > Thanks for kicking this off.  My RPM packages with packaged rules seem to be > working well on RHEL4, RHEL5 and Fedora 10+. excellent! > Do we have enough variety of users submitting nightly mass check data? we still need some more, I think.

Re: 3.3.0 plans, what next?

Thanks for kicking this off. My RPM packages with packaged rules seem to be working well on RHEL4, RHEL5 and Fedora 10+. Do we have enough variety of users submitting nightly mass check data? What remains to be fixed before 3.3.0? What is a theoretical schedule for 3.3.0? Warren Togami wtog.

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:07, Warren Togami wrote: > On 07/07/2009 04:57 AM, Justin Mason wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 23:36, Warren Togami  wrote: >>> >>> On 07/06/2009 06:12 PM, Justin Mason wrote: crap, you're right. :( https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On 07/07/2009 04:57 AM, Justin Mason wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 23:36, Warren Togami wrote: On 07/06/2009 06:12 PM, Justin Mason wrote: crap, you're right. :( https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6147 there's a patch there that appears to fix it. does it work for you? -

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 23:36, Warren Togami wrote: > On 07/06/2009 06:12 PM, Justin Mason wrote: >> >> crap, you're right. :( >> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6147 >> >> there's a patch there that appears to fix it.  does it work for you? >> >> --j. > > A patch only for MAN

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On 07/06/2009 06:12 PM, Justin Mason wrote: crap, you're right. :( https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6147 there's a patch there that appears to fix it. does it work for you? --j. A patch only for MANIFEST* going to copy *.pre files from the tarball, when the tarball la

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 22:40, Warren Togami wrote: > On 07/06/2009 05:32 PM, Justin Mason wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 21:05, Warren Togami  wrote: >>> >>> On 07/06/2009 04:00 PM, Mark Martinec wrote: Warren, > On 07/03/2009 10:37 PM, Matt Kettler wrote: >> >> The

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On 07/06/2009 05:32 PM, Justin Mason wrote: On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 21:05, Warren Togami wrote: On 07/06/2009 04:00 PM, Mark Martinec wrote: Warren, On 07/03/2009 10:37 PM, Matt Kettler wrote: The public alpha release was announced yesterday on the users mailing list: http://mail-archives.

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 21:05, Warren Togami wrote: > On 07/06/2009 04:00 PM, Mark Martinec wrote: >> >> Warren, >> >>> On 07/03/2009 10:37 PM, Matt Kettler wrote: The public alpha release was announced yesterday on the users mailing list: http://mail-archives.apache.or

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On 07/06/2009 04:00 PM, Mark Martinec wrote: Warren, On 07/03/2009 10:37 PM, Matt Kettler wrote: The public alpha release was announced yesterday on the users mailing list: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/% 3c6c399e450907021522k1678f0ffn454a1e670f064...

Re: 3.3.0 plans

Warren, > On 07/03/2009 10:37 PM, Matt Kettler wrote: > > The public alpha release was announced yesterday on the users mailing > > list: > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/% > >3c6c399e450907021522k1678f0ffn454a1e670f064...@mail.gmail.com%3e > > I'm ha

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On 07/03/2009 10:37 PM, Matt Kettler wrote: The public alpha release was announced yesterday on the users mailing list: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/%3c6c399e450907021522k1678f0ffn454a1e670f064...@mail.gmail.com%3e I'm having trouble getting it to run

Re: 3.3.0 plans

Warren Togami wrote: > On 06/29/2009 11:59 AM, Justin Mason wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 16:27, Warren Togami wrote: >>> On 06/29/2009 07:44 AM, Justin Mason wrote: How's about I cut an alpha at the end of this week? >>> Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers? >> >>

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On 06/29/2009 11:59 AM, Justin Mason wrote: On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 16:27, Warren Togami wrote: On 06/29/2009 07:44 AM, Justin Mason wrote: How's about I cut an alpha at the end of this week? Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers? ok ok. good point ;) Let's give it 3 day

Re: 3.3.0 plans

2009/6/30 Karsten Bräckelmann : > On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:51 +0100, Justin Mason wrote: >> 2009/6/25 Karsten Bräckelmann : > >> > I believe re-thinking the minimum supported Perl version and related >> > stuff like screwing MakeMaker would be a *really* good target for a new >> > $minor release. >

Re: 3.3.0 plans

Karsten Bräckelmann wrote, On 30/6/09 12:27 PM: Essentially we would promise actively supporting any issues with Perl 5.8, but not necessarily fix it for 5.6, too. That sounds to me very much like declaring 5.6 as deprecated. Would that have the right connotations for what both of you have bee

Re: 3.3.0 plans

Essentially we would promise actively supporting any issues with Perl 5.8, but not necessarily fix it for 5.6, too. I agree fully with your statements on this! It's not about an age-range of obsolete versions being introduced, but superseded. Don't think "Perl 5.8 is 7 years old", but "5.6 wen

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 20:01 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > I would easily vote to require a MakeMaker version if that is the only > requirement to keep 5.6.X support to move this release forward. Anyone > supporting a 5.6.x install should be capable of installing requirements that > don't nec

Re: 3.3.0 plans

I'm all for abandoning perl 5.6 with 3.3, although I can accept it one way or another. For those in need of perl 5.6 there will still be a 3.2.*. Please don't say that. I think we'd like to envision the death of old versions and the support of the new tree only as soon as feasible! I'd prefe

Re: 3.3.0 plans

don't support an age-range for supporting perl because even 5.8 is already nearly 7 years old having been release in July 2002. Regards, KAM - Original Message - From: "Karsten Bräckelmann" To: Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 7:32 PM Subject: Re: 3.3.0 plans On Thu, 2009-

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Tuesday 30 June 2009 01:32:16 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > BTW, since you're about to push an alpha release... > > Did we decide about that yet? :) Not really, but it seems to be a moment of a sparkling desire among devels, perhaps too good to be missed, before everybody leaves for vacation (or

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:51 +0100, Justin Mason wrote: > 2009/6/25 Karsten Bräckelmann : > > I believe re-thinking the minimum supported Perl version and related > > stuff like screwing MakeMaker would be a *really* good target for a new > > $minor release. > > > > How much longer do we want to su

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 22:24, Mark Martinec wrote: > Justin wrote: > >> > Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers? >> >> ok ok.  good point ;) >> >> Let's give it 3 days to garner some comments and possibly close out a >> few of those P1s and P2s.  Wednesday evening... > > Wednesday

Re: 3.3.0 plans

Justin wrote: > > Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers? > > ok ok. good point ;) > > Let's give it 3 days to garner some comments and possibly close out a > few of those P1s and P2s. Wednesday evening... Wednesday evening is good (or even Thursday), I could announce its availa

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 16:27, Warren Togami wrote: > On 06/29/2009 07:44 AM, Justin Mason wrote: >> >> How's about I cut an alpha at the end of this week? >> > > Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers? ok ok. good point ;) Let's give it 3 days to garner some comments and possibl

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On 06/29/2009 07:44 AM, Justin Mason wrote: How's about I cut an alpha at the end of this week? Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers? Warren

Re: 3.3.0 plans

ok! Here's what I see in bugzilla right now: ID Sev Pri OS AssigneeStatus Resolution Summary 6077maj P1 All dev@spamassassin.apache.org NEW fix failing tests 6131maj P1 All dev@spamassassin.apache.org

Re: 3.3.0 plans

2009/6/25 Karsten Bräckelmann : > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 23:00 +0100, Justin Mason wrote: >> is there anything else that we should sort out before an alpha is viable? > > I believe re-thinking the minimum supported Perl version and related > stuff like screwing MakeMaker would be a *really* good tar

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 23:00 +0100, Justin Mason wrote: > is there anything else that we should sort out before an alpha is viable? I believe re-thinking the minimum supported Perl version and related stuff like screwing MakeMaker would be a *really* good target for a new $minor release. How much

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 21:37, Justin Mason wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 21:21, Theo Van Dinter wrote: >> fwiw, the process used to be: >> - beta releases to get things stabilized >> - use a beta release to do mass-check runs >> - generate scores with mass-check data and submit to svn > > I thi

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 21:21, Theo Van Dinter wrote: > fwiw, the process used to be: > - beta releases to get things stabilized > - use a beta release to do mass-check runs > - generate scores with mass-check data and submit to svn I think we may be able to simplify that, now that Daryl's system

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 19:11, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote: > --On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:28 PM +0200 Mark Martinec > wrote: > >> On my part I've spent less time lately on SpamAssassin then >> I would like. Getting the amavis release out, preparing for >> a conference, and then there will be a v

Re: 3.3.0 plans

fwiw, the process used to be: - beta releases to get things stabilized - use a beta release to do mass-check runs - generate scores with mass-check data and submit to svn - rc releases to get wider testing w/ scores - release after rc appear to work On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Quanah Gibson

Re: 3.3.0 plans

--On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:28 PM +0200 Mark Martinec wrote: On my part I've spent less time lately on SpamAssassin then I would like. Getting the amavis release out, preparing for a conference, and then there will be a vacation time for me, so I won't be of much help until the end of Ju

Re: 3.3.0 plans

Sorry for my late response, and bringing the topic back to the list (with some quotes omitted). Warren Togami writes: > Might it be feasible to get 3.3.0 out sometime during the Fedora 12 dev > cycle? It seems there is maybe 2-3 months. A fresh spamassassin making > this release might possibly b

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 19:35, Warren Togami wrote: > On 05/28/2009 03:48 AM, Justin Mason wrote: >> >> It would be quite possible to do this, given a sufficiently-dedicated >> release guy pushing >> it.  It takes about 2 months to get through mass-checks, generate good >> scores, >> etc.  Unfortu

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On 05/28/2009 03:48 AM, Justin Mason wrote: It would be quite possible to do this, given a sufficiently-dedicated release guy pushing it. It takes about 2 months to get through mass-checks, generate good scores, etc. Unfortunately, I'm out for this job, as child #2 is about to be born any day n

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 05:10, Warren Togami wrote: > On 04/14/2009 07:21 AM, Mark Martinec wrote: >> >> I agree it's about time to get 3.3.0 wrapped up. There is some useful new >> code there along with a couple of bug fixes, just sitting there. People >> are >> reluctant to use a non-released ve

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On 04/14/2009 07:21 AM, Mark Martinec wrote: I agree it's about time to get 3.3.0 wrapped up. There is some useful new code there along with a couple of bug fixes, just sitting there. People are reluctant to use a non-released version, even though I'd say it is just as stable if not more than 3.

Re: 3.3.0 plans

> > On Tuesday 14 April 2009 10:50:23 Justin Mason wrote: > >> > In general we've been a little light on dev effort lately.. perhaps we > >> > need to start rounding up for a 3.3.0 release. > >> > >> yeah, I think we should. > > I agree it's about time to get 3.3.0 wrapped up. There is some useful

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Wednesday 15 April 2009 03:53:17 Michael Alan Dorman wrote: > I also read a post just this morning from a linux kernel hacker who's > working with BDB, who fingered RMW as causing problems for him, so I > may check that as well. Btw, I'm using bdb with DB_INIT_CDB | DB_INIT_MPOOL (cursor lockin

Re: 3.3.0 plans

> I don't know if it would be helpful or not, but you may wish to look > at the OpenLDAP back-bdb and back-hdb backends, which use BDB > extensively, and are highly performant. It's a good recommendation. I also read a post just this morning from a linux kernel hacker who's working with BDB, who

Re: 3.3.0 plans

--On Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:29 AM -0400 Michael Alan Dorman wrote: Sorry, I've been swamped by work for the last couple of months. I haven't had time to pull in your changes from a month or two ago, which I want to look at, but I have done some work independently. The solution to the cons

Re: 3.3.0 plans

> I would too like to see the BerkeleyDB bayes backend to be sorted out > before the release. I made a couple of minor attempts to deal with the > more obvious issues, but it would be nice to get some help from > Michael, its author (or some other interested party), and some > experience from a pr

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:21, Mark Martinec wrote: > On Tuesday 14 April 2009 10:50:23 Justin Mason wrote: >> > In general we've been a little light on dev effort lately.. perhaps we >> > need to start rounding up for a 3.3.0 release. >> >> yeah, I think we should. >> >> https://issues.apache.org

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Tuesday 14 April 2009 10:50:23 Justin Mason wrote: > > In general we've been a little light on dev effort lately.. perhaps we > > need to start rounding up for a 3.3.0 release. > > yeah, I think we should. > > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5752 > 'Let's get rid of the de

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 01:48, Matt Kettler wrote: > Warren Togami wrote: >> On 08/28/2008 06:47 AM, Justin Mason wrote: >>> >>> hi Warren -- >>> >>> There's been no real motion -- we've been infrequently bashing the >>> odd bug >>> in the 3.3.0 list, but we have no concrete release schedule yet.

Re: 3.3.0 plans

Warren Togami wrote: > On 08/28/2008 06:47 AM, Justin Mason wrote: >> >> hi Warren -- >> >> There's been no real motion -- we've been infrequently bashing the >> odd bug >> in the 3.3.0 list, but we have no concrete release schedule yet. Sorry >> about that... >> >> --j. > > How are things going n

Re: 3.3.0 plans

On 08/28/2008 06:47 AM, Justin Mason wrote: Warren Togami writes: Justin Mason wrote: ok, what bugs really need to be fixed for 3.3.0? feel free to set Priority on bugs on the 3.3.0 milestone. in my opinion this is the only real blocker: 57522008-02-04 nor P1 Let's get rid of t

Re: 3.3.0 plans

Warren Togami writes: > Justin Mason wrote: > > ok, what bugs really need to be fixed for 3.3.0? feel free to set > > Priority on bugs on the 3.3.0 milestone. in my opinion this is the > > only real blocker: > > > > 57522008-02-04 nor P1 Let's get rid of the default rules dir > >

Re: 3.3.0 plans

Justin Mason wrote: ok, what bugs really need to be fixed for 3.3.0? feel free to set Priority on bugs on the 3.3.0 milestone. in my opinion this is the only real blocker: 57522008-02-04 nor P1 Let's get rid of the default rules dir and make sa-update mandatory All the rest is j

Re: 3.3.0 plans

Matthias Leisi writes: > Justin Mason schrieb: > > | if you check the bug (can't recall the number right now), there's plans to > | make a tarball available of _just_ the rules, alongside the distro at > | release time. That way, that kind of users can dl the tarball and > | install it using "sa

Re: 3.3.0 plans

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Justin Mason schrieb: | if you check the bug (can't recall the number right now), there's plans to | make a tarball available of _just_ the rules, alongside the distro at | release time. That way, that kind of users can dl the tarball and | install

Re: 3.3.0 plans

Matthias Leisi writes: > > - fixing the distribution process to work without rules in the dist > > tarball (since we'll be moving to a model where with distribute > > without rules and they're downloaded by the admin on install). > > The longer I think about it, the less convinced I am

Re: 3.3.0 plans

> - fixing the distribution process to work without rules in the dist > tarball (since we'll be moving to a model where with distribute > without rules and they're downloaded by the admin on install). The longer I think about it, the less convinced I am that it is a good idea. In envir

Re: 3.3.0 plans

lt;http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4416> please > >>>> please > >>>> please. :) > >>> unfortunately, there's no patch there, and it appears that BerkeleyDB > >>> doesn't support upgrading of .db files anyway. un

Re: 3.3.0 plans

in my opinion this is the only real blocker: <http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4416> please please please. :) unfortunately, there's no patch there, and it appears that BerkeleyDB doesn't support upgrading of .db files anyway. unlikely to get in, given that! H

Re: 3.3.0 plans

s no patch there, and it appears that BerkeleyDB > > doesn't support upgrading of .db files anyway. unlikely to get in, > > given that! > > How are the 3.3.0 plans coming along? Hmm. things have been pretty quiet -- I think we're all a bit distracted by other, non-SpamAssa

Re: 3.3.0 plans

<http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=4416> please please please. :) unfortunately, there's no patch there, and it appears that BerkeleyDB doesn't support upgrading of .db files anyway. unlikely to get in, given that! --j. How are the 3.3.0 plans coming along? Warren

Re: 3.3.0 plans

Quanah Gibson-Mount writes: > --On Friday, March 14, 2008 3:36 PM + Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > ok, what bugs really need to be fixed for 3.3.0? feel free to set > > Priority on bugs on the 3.3.0 milestone. in my opinion this is the > > only real blocker: > >

Re: 3.3.0 plans

--On Friday, March 14, 2008 3:36 PM + Justin Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ok, what bugs really need to be fixed for 3.3.0? feel free to set Priority on bugs on the 3.3.0 milestone. in my opinion this is the only real blocker:

3.3.0 plans

ok, what bugs really need to be fixed for 3.3.0? feel free to set Priority on bugs on the 3.3.0 milestone. in my opinion this is the only real blocker: 57522008-02-04 nor P1 Let's get rid of the default rules dir and make sa-update mandatory All the rest is just icing (and the odd