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.
pgpd8W6LLBgLL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
