Re: open-whois rules and sa-update

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

2009/7/20 Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>:
> I'm slightly confused, but that may be just me...
>
> First, I noticed that *prior* to my sa-update, the open-whois rules
> already have been removed from my stock update rule-set, and that the
> last update was 10 days old. Alas, didn't retain a copy.
>
> Then there is the revision, as mentioned in bug 6157, comment 2.
>  http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=795855

oh great!  no wonder I got an svn "G" indicator when I svn up'd that branch ;)

> That's the latest updates branch for 3.2, and it wondered about the
> note. It claims to have been copied from the old and deprecated
> spamassassin/rules/branches/3.2 -- is this just a bad SVN note, or is
> this still the way to go for the stable branch?

ugh.  it's complicated.

There were no less than 4 places where we had rules:

rulesrc: sandboxes
trunk rules dir: distro /rules, as packaged
3.2.x rules dir: 3.2.x branch /rules, as packaged
3.2.x rule updates dir: confusingly ANOTHER 3.2.x dir, for producing
3.2.x updates from

we've just gotten rid of the rulesrc sandboxes place.  the other 3 are
still intact, including the 3.2.x updates dir.
When we do 3.3.0 we should _definitely not_ use that approach, it
hasn't helped at all, and is quite complex.


> Looking at the sa-update tags, I guess I see the reason for the initial
> issue. Already back on Mar 25, the WHOIS_ rules have been removed,
> though probably never pushed as an update (bug 6090), and published
> later with another sa-update.
>
> Would that be correct? What exactly did you change for today's sa-update
> then? And can bug 6090 be closed, too?

I'm not sure about the bug 6090 changes, since mine at least included
score changes too:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/branches/3.2/rules/50_scores.cf?r1=795850&r2=795849&pathrev=795850
I suspect bug 6090's diff was a partial remove of those rules.

-- 
--j.