Hi, >> Perhaps a question for the dev list, but I've just pulled the latest >> version from svn, r1603656, according to the output of svn. > > Should be alright. The Subversion database of ASF is common to multiple > projects, so revision numbers do monotonically increase, but not > every number corresponds to the SpamAssassin project. > > According to 'svn log' the most recent change was > r1603518 2014-06-18 16:48:04 UTC > so your r1603656 is fine, it includes all today's SpamAssassin changes. > >> After compiling and running it with --version, it reports: >> >> # spamassassin --version >> SpamAssassin version 3.4.1-r1567128 > >> Did I do something wrong? Where did it get this version information from? >> This number exists nowhere in the source or even in an strace of the >> binary. Where is this release info stored? > > Strange, mine reports 3.4.1-r1567215. > Could it be that you ran and older spamassassin copy? > > I believe the r1567215 comes from the most recent check-in > of the file spamassassin.raw (some time in February), as > updated by the 'svn ci' itself - so it is not very indicative > of how recent your entire code set really is.
If I check-out the latest again, I see this: ... A Mail-SpamAssassin-3.4.1/rules/20_uri_tests.cf A Mail-SpamAssassin-3.4.1/rules/v330.pre A Mail-SpamAssassin-3.4.1/rules/STATISTICS-set1.txt U Mail-SpamAssassin-3.4.1 Checked out revision 1603703. So these numbers must be being generated like you said; that is, along with other projects. > Also, are there any especially egregious reasons why I shouldn't run this > in production, other than it obviously not being a production release? I'd > otherwise like to take advantage of the recent bugfixes announced on the > list, and willing to risk it. > Should be alright. No worse than 3.4.0, likely better :) Awesome. John wrote: > That bit apparently gets commented out when building SA for official release. You're seeing it because > you're building from SVN trunk. Take a look in build/README. Ah, there it is. Great, thanks so much guys. Thanks, Alex
