3.3.x auto updates, was Re: Need a 3.3 branch

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

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 03:21, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
<sp...@dostech.ca> wrote:
> On 27/01/2010 5:11 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 05:10, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
>> <sp...@dostech.ca> wrote:
>>> On 26/01/2010 11:02 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
>>>> On 26/01/2010 10:33 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
>>>>> How are we going to do the proposed "auto-promote rules with nightly
>>>>> masscheck from trunk to 3.3.x stable sa-update"?
>>>> Crap.  That stuff needs to be disabled, or changed to 3.4.0 real fast.
>>> OK, I've disabled the two cron jobs that generate the nightly rule
>>> updates for now.
>>> They can be re-enabled when things "in there" get rolled to 3.4.0.
>>
>> ?  I don't get you.  what do you mean?
>
> We were publishing automated sa-update updates for 3.3.0 (which was
> until we released 3.3.0 the trunk updates).  This isn't good since we're
> not quite ready to automatically publish updates for stable releases.

I was under the impression this was the plan for 3.3.x.

We do rule dev, mass-checks and ruleqa using trunk, then publish the
updates to the 3.3.x sa-update channel.

- appropriately linted; anything that fails lint will not be published

- "if can(...)" will be used to protect trunk-only new features

- easier than setting up a parallel ruleqa infrastructure & mass-checks


If we instead move all that stuff to 3.4.0 (ie trunk), we'll be in
exactly the same situation as 3.2.x was -- ie. rule updates only cut
in response to tickets, which will effectively mean 1 update every ~3
months.

If it's not ready, in my opinion we need to get this running again as
a priority for 3.3.x.

-- 
--j.

Re: 3.3.x auto updates, was Re: Need a 3.3 branch

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

On 29/01/2010 6:03 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 03:21, Daryl C. W. O'Shea
>> We were publishing automated sa-update updates for 3.3.0 (which was
>> until we released 3.3.0 the trunk updates).  This isn't good since we're
>> not quite ready to automatically publish updates for stable releases.
> 
> I was under the impression this was the plan for 3.3.x.

I thought we were going to assign scores to the rules before we
distributed them.

> We do rule dev, mass-checks and ruleqa using trunk, then publish the
> updates to the 3.3.x sa-update channel.
> 
> - appropriately linted; anything that fails lint will not be published
> 
> - "if can(...)" will be used to protect trunk-only new features
> 
> - easier than setting up a parallel ruleqa infrastructure & mass-checks

There's no need to setup a parallel instance.  We'll generate scores
just after the weekly net mass-check and generate an update with those
automatically.

> If we instead move all that stuff to 3.4.0 (ie trunk), we'll be in
> exactly the same situation as 3.2.x was -- ie. rule updates only cut
> in response to tickets, which will effectively mean 1 update every ~3
> months.

Nah.  Weekly to start, more often after that's proven.

> If it's not ready, in my opinion we need to get this running again as
> a priority for 3.3.x.

That's my plan for the weekend.

Daryl

Re: 3.3.x auto updates, was Re: Need a 3.3 branch

[Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si>]

On Friday January 29 2010 12:03:07 Justin Mason wrote:

> I was under the impression this was the plan for 3.3.x.
> 
> We do rule dev, mass-checks and ruleqa using trunk, then publish the
> updates to the 3.3.x sa-update channel.
> - appropriately linted; anything that fails lint will not be published
> - "if can(...)" will be used to protect trunk-only new features
> - easier than setting up a parallel ruleqa infrastructure & mass-checks
> If we instead move all that stuff to 3.4.0 (ie trunk), we'll be in
> exactly the same situation as 3.2.x was -- ie. rule updates only cut
> in response to tickets, which will effectively mean 1 update every ~3
> months.
>
> If it's not ready, in my opinion we need to get this running again as
> a priority for 3.3.x.

Exactly.

  Mark