-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Duncan Findlay writes: > On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 03:23:58PM -0700, Justin Mason wrote: > > Based on email from the last few weeks, I think we're all pretty happy > > with the sandboxes idea as described on > > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/RulesProjSandboxes . It's also the > > first step on the way to all the other listed ideas. Given that, I've come > > up with a task list to get us there. So can we get votes, both for the > > plan, and for the tasks? Here they are: > > I'm not sure the tasks really need to be voted on, I mean, would it > make sense if we approved all but number 3? :-) ah whatever ;) I'm just trying to make sure we don't wind up either - - (a) in a situation where someone says "that's not what I was voting for!" or - - (b) in a situation where we have a load of +0.5s, and not enough full +1s, resulting in all 5 tasks getting stalled when only 1 or 2 of them were the controversial ones. oh btw -- my votes, in case it's not obvious, +1 on the lot. - --j. > > - PMC: vote to approve the sandboxes project > > - reorganise the rules directory into core/ , sandbox/, and extra/; link > > that rules project SVN repository to 3.2.0's 'rules' dir; use SVN > > externals to do this. > > - write scripts to test, filter, and pull rules from sandboxes > > automatically into core/ production ruleset > > - move current ruleset into a new "legacy" sandbox > > - start using the above scripts to generate core/ ruleset in svn > > +5 > > i.e. +1 for each of the above. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFC/pkaMJF5cimLx9ARAgCqAJ9TYU7xavD8I62qepqNK8h/E2Rv+gCfQVq+ 3Y5gL5fkx3z2lIvoYPe57fk= =bBqa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
