Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules?

["Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>]

Justin Mason wrote:
> Theo Van Dinter writes:
>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 09:11:08PM -0600, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>>> Is there some process that needs to be automated to ship out the 3.1
>>> branch rules changes via sa-update?
>> At the moment, we push out the updates manually.  It could be automated (I
>> already have a script that does 95% of it, which I currently run manually,)
>> but I think 3.1 will probably stay manual for a while.
>>
>> 3.2 has automatic updates, which some of us (ok, at least me,) is still not
>> too sure about.
> 
> I don't know -- I think the manual process hasn't been working out too
> great, myself, to be honest ;)

It seems that the manual process is missing a lint check with the 
appropriate version(s) to validate the update, but that's no big deal to 
fix.  I don't think the automated way does it either, but should.

I think that the real issue is rule scoring... with overlapping rules 
causing FPs.

This is the biggest reason why I'm not yet running 3.2 on my MXes... 
there's nothing to stop rules with inappropriate scores, or rules that 
overlap (all with a score of 1, probably) from being auto-promoted and 
published.  At least with the manual updates someone has to consciously 
add those rules and their scores to the update.  It doesn't prevent the 
overlap problem (unless whoever does the update is really paying 
attention), and the scores are still best guess, but I think it lessens 
the effect somewhat.


Daryl

Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules?

[Theo Van Dinter <fe...@apache.org>]

On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 02:33:32AM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> This is my main issue with the automatic updates btw.  I currently don't like
> the idea of the nightly/weekly results enabling/disabling rules and changing
> scores (though it doesn't do that yet iirc) on production-use updates.

Oh, another main issue which I've brought up before is that given the
current setup, unless things have changed that I've missed, is the
automated rule updates only work for the current _development_ release.  So
we'd need to retool things to work properly for the last (and probably
previous couple) stable releases.

-- 
Randomly Selected Tagline:
Integrity has no need for rules.

Re: SA-UPDATE and recent branches/3.1 rules?

[Theo Van Dinter <fe...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 02:43:25PM -0500, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
> It seems that the manual process is missing a lint check with the 
> appropriate version(s) to validate the update, but that's no big deal to 
> fix.  I don't think the automated way does it either, but should.

Well, the "manual process" requires someone to do a lint check during the
process.  The documented one assumes this has already been done, which I did
on my machine.  fyi.

> This is the biggest reason why I'm not yet running 3.2 on my MXes... 
> there's nothing to stop rules with inappropriate scores, or rules that 
> overlap (all with a score of 1, probably) from being auto-promoted and 
> published.  At least with the manual updates someone has to consciously 
> add those rules and their scores to the update.

This is my main issue with the automatic updates btw.  I currently don't like
the idea of the nightly/weekly results enabling/disabling rules and changing
scores (though it doesn't do that yet iirc) on production-use updates.

-- 
Randomly Selected Tagline:
For every vision there is an equal and opposite revision.