+sysadmins@s.a.o so we don't lose these conversations.
Consider asking gst...@apache.org for his help on SVN. I simply don't
play with enough tags, branches, revisions, etc.
Either there is a bug and we are injecting the wrong version, or you are
just looking at things incorrectly.
However, I think you perhaps are just doing something wrong??
This command, for example, appears to pull an SA rule set. Isn't that
the expected behavior?
svn co -r 1813595 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/spamassassin/trunk
trunk-new-rules-set1 | more
A trunk-new-rules-set1/rulesrc
A trunk-new-rules-set1/rulesrc/10_force_active.cf
A trunk-new-rules-set1/rulesrc/sandbox
A trunk-new-rules-set1/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin
A trunk-new-rules-set1/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/20_MIME_no_text.cf
A trunk-new-rules-set1/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/20_misc_testing.cf
A trunk-new-rules-set1/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/20_lotsa_money.cf
A trunk-new-rules-set1/rulesrc/sandbox/jhardin/20_MIME_in_body.cf
What do you get?
Regards,
KAM
On 11/2/2017 5:29 AM, Merijn van den Kroonenberg wrote:
I am a bit confused about corpus revision
Take for example this:
Revision: 1813664
Author: spamassassin_role
Date: zondag 29 oktober 2017 3:47:00
Message:
updated scores for revision 1813595 active rules added since last
mass-check
And in the sysadmin mail from last night (rescore example)
svn co -r 1813595 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/spamassassin/trunk
trunk-new-rules-set1
So the commit mentions revision 1813595, I assume its also mentioned
in corpus logs and its actually checked out.
BUT 1813595 is no valid revision for the spamassassin project??
Its actually a revision in another apcache project.
Revision: 1813595
Author: deepak
Date: zaterdag 28 oktober 2017 10:33:50
Message:
Improved: Add rat exclude files to excludes those files that does not
need
license header
(OFBIZ-9856)
Updated rat-excludes.txt file
----
Modified : /ofbiz/ofbiz-framework/trunk/rat-excludes.txt
So is somewhere something wrong with detecting the correct revision?
-----Original Message----- From: Kevin A. McGrail
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 10:49 PM
To: David Jones ; Merijn van den Kroonenberg
Subject: Re: Eureka: truncation of 72_active.cf
On 11/1/2017 5:31 PM, David Jones wrote:
I found another bug in the DKIM_VALID_EF rule description that needed
to be wrapped in a version check that was causing the ruleset
validation to fail with return code 4. Just committed another fix
that should take care of this.
The timing of the rule promotions and the masscheck validation, this
could take another ~40 hours to work itself out. I really want to
improve the way things work to speed up this cycle time.
Agreed. I am very excited to finally have this done though.
