You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by bu...@issues.apache.org on 2011/01/20 06:42:34 UTC
[Bug 6536] New: "reuse" DNSWL and IADB Rules in masscheck
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6536
Summary: "reuse" DNSWL and IADB Rules in masscheck
Product: Spamassassin
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Rules
AssignedTo: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
ReportedBy: wtogami@gmail.com
Created an attachment (id=4842)
--> (https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4842)
Patch
I am writing this ticket because it was suggested that I shouldn't be modifying
other committers' sandboxes without RTC with 3 votes. I think this as a
steadfast policy without common sense "good judgment" exception is a
counter-productive waste of time for the following reasons:
* I am permitted to use good judgment in changing anything outside of the
sandbox with CTR instead of RTC as this is trunk.
* felicity has clearly not been participating for a long time, and he has
failed to respond to my private request to make this change.
* Any of us can plainly see that this change is negligible and absolutely safe.
* If this is truly policy, my options are either to quit, or to file an
annoying ticket on every trivial, obviously correct change. Isn't common sense
a better policy?
What exactly are people afraid of?
I hereby give permission for any other committer to change anything in my
sandbox if their personal judgment deems it is safe and not counter to the
intent of my rules. I trust you not to introduce breakage in my sandbox. I
don't expect for this to ever be a problem, but if I disagree with your change
then we can talk about it.
Under protest, I post this negligible patch for review and votes.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6536] "reuse" DNSWL and IADB Rules in masscheck
Posted by bu...@issues.apache.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6536
Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
CC| |kmcgrail@pccc.com
Resolution|INVALID |
Status Whiteboard|3 votes needed |1 votes needed
--- Comment #2 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-01-20 10:00:44 UTC ---
Warren is frustrated so I'll update the bug and reopen.
Bug is to change another developer's sandbox file and is considered time
sensitive. I believe the developer is Theo.
Patch to update files is attached and is minor to change tests to reuse for
masscheck purposes.
+1 to the change. And assuming Warren's vote is a de facto +1, that means only
1 vote is needed.
re: the rant/policy issue.
As I wrote the policy about modifying other sandboxes with at least some input
from others, I don't agree it's lacking common sense. However, I'm open to
suggestions to modify the policy. That should likely be taken to dev@.
For others, the policy is more clearly defined here:
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/RuleSandboxes#Editing_Another_Developer.27s_Sandbox
has the policy.
regards,
KAM
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6536] "reuse" DNSWL and IADB Rules in masscheck
Posted by bu...@issues.apache.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6536
John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jhardin@impsec.org
--- Comment #3 from John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org> 2011-01-20 11:02:01 UTC ---
+1 for opening dead sandboxes to other contributors. Autopromote now means the
sandboxes are risky to abandon.
Should we administratively set a grace period for when we consider a sandbox
abandoned? A year of no dev contact or updates by the owner? There are six
sandboxes that haven't been touched in 18 months...
Is there a contributor contact list in a standard location? If not, I'd suggest
adding one. trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/contributors.txt perhaps?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6536] "reuse" DNSWL and IADB Rules in masscheck
Posted by bu...@issues.apache.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6536
Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Whiteboard| |3 votes needed
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6536] "reuse" DNSWL and IADB Rules in masscheck
Posted by bu...@issues.apache.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6536
--- Comment #5 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-01-20 15:31:19 UTC ---
>> Is there a contributor contact list in a standard location? If not, I'd suggest
>> adding one. trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/contributors.txt perhaps?
> Good idea. Possible to make it non-published except to committers so things
> like home phone numbers, etc. could be added?
+1
Could we have something similar for the masscheck team as well? I don't know
how to contact some of the masscheck participants to ask them to verify if
certain messages are really ham or to change certain parameters in their
nightly script.
> I hereby give permission for any other committer to change anything in my
> sandbox if their personal judgment deems it is safe and not counter to the
> intent of my rules. I trust you not to introduce breakage in my sandbox. I
> don't expect for this to ever be a problem, but if I disagree with your change
> then we can talk about it.
I am in support of the policy of abandoned sandboxes. In addition to that, I
might suggest that individual active members may declare a reasonable common
sense open policy of their own.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6536] "reuse" DNSWL and IADB Rules in masscheck
Posted by bu...@issues.apache.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6536
Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jm@jmason.org
--- Comment #6 from Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> 2011-01-20 15:38:58 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > I hereby give permission for any other committer to change anything in my
> > sandbox if their personal judgment deems it is safe and not counter to the
> > intent of my rules. I trust you not to introduce breakage in my sandbox. I
> > don't expect for this to ever be a problem, but if I disagree with your change
> > then we can talk about it.
>
> I am in support of the policy of abandoned sandboxes. In addition to that, I
> might suggest that individual active members may declare a reasonable common
> sense open policy of their own.
+1, I can go with that policy.
fwiw, I would be inclined to consider a sandbox as equivalent to any other part
of the codebase in this regard; if there's breakage, any dev can fix it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
Re: [Bug 6536] "reuse" DNSWL and IADB Rules in masscheck
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:03 PM, <bu...@issues.apache.org> wrote:
> The way I viewed it is if the committer is still consider active, the sandbox
> is off-limits without asking them first.
>
> However, perhaps this is time to consider moving some committers to non-active
> status.
Hey folks!
Both wtogami and kmcgrail contacted me about 6536. Apparently it's
already been resolved already, but I wanted to make sure that folks
knew that I was fine with other people changing my sandbox area.
Thank you for respecting the sanctity of an individual's sandbox area,
but since I've been away from SA for several years now, please feel
free to clean up or modify anything in there as you deem necessary.
I'd be surprised if those rules still perform well at all, actually,
given their age.
I hope everything else is going well. :)
Cheers.
[Bug 6536] "reuse" DNSWL and IADB Rules in masscheck
Posted by bu...@issues.apache.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6536
Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
Status Whiteboard|1 votes needed |RTC
--- Comment #4 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-01-20 12:03:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> +1 for opening dead sandboxes to other contributors. Autopromote now means the
> sandboxes are risky to abandon.
>
> Should we administratively set a grace period for when we consider a sandbox
> abandoned? A year of no dev contact or updates by the owner? There are six
> sandboxes that haven't been touched in 18 months...
The way I viewed it is if the committer is still consider active, the sandbox
is off-limits without asking them first.
However, perhaps this is time to consider moving some committers to non-active
status.
But please move this to the dev@ list.
Warren, you have your three votes and can apply the patch.
> Is there a contributor contact list in a standard location? If not, I'd suggest
> adding one. trunk/rulesrc/sandbox/contributors.txt perhaps?
Good idea. Possible to make it non-published except to committers so things
like home phone numbers, etc. could be added?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6536] "reuse" DNSWL and IADB Rules in masscheck
Posted by bu...@issues.apache.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6536
Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com> 2011-01-20 01:12:20 UTC ---
Rants aren't bugs.
Please open up a proper bug and then ask for votes.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.