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 2010/10/27 19:01:49 UTC
[Bug 6380] [review] sa-update should handle case where some
channel(s) fail but others work
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6380
Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|Undefined |3.4.0
Summary|sa-update should handle |[review] sa-update should
|case where some channel(s) |handle case where some
|fail but others work |channel(s) fail but others
| |work
Status Whiteboard| |needs 2 votes for 3.4.0
--
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 6380] [review] sa-update should handle case where some channel(s)
fail but others work
Posted by Jason Bertoch <ja...@i6ix.com>.
On 2010/10/27 11:27 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> I can't access this bug for some reason. I get an "undef error - Can't
> locate Class/Singleton.pm" error.
>
> Any who... do we care about having error codes corresponding to binary
> bits (the original codes were 0 1 2 4)? Should the new error code be 8?
>
I considered that in my original patch, but chose exit code 3 due to
existing logic in sub channel_failed: if ($exit > 4) { $exit++; }.
Changing this would break backward compatibility with existing wrapper
scripts.
--
/Jason
Re: [Bug 6380] [review] sa-update should handle case where some channel(s)
fail but others work
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
On 10/27/2010 11:27 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> I can't access this bug for some reason. I get an "undef error -
> Can't locate Class/Singleton.pm" error.
>
> Any who... do we care about having error codes corresponding to binary
> bits (the original codes were 0 1 2 4)? Should the new error code be 8?
>
> Daryl
I think it is a good idea to use binary bits because then if we need, we
can error with 12 and that's bitwise errors of both 4 & 8, etc. should
we decide to in the future.
I can't test this because I don't use multiple channels but should be
add a test case?
Regards,
KAM
Re: [Bug 6380] [review] sa-update should handle case where some channel(s)
fail but others work
Posted by "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>.
I can't access this bug for some reason. I get an "undef error - Can't
locate Class/Singleton.pm" error.
Any who... do we care about having error codes corresponding to binary
bits (the original codes were 0 1 2 4)? Should the new error code be 8?
Daryl