http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5545
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-04 20:27 ------- (In reply to comment #7) > I'm -0.2 on the idea. > > I guess I'm at the other end of the spectrum on this one. (All on my own?) If > I > write a rule, I don't want to think about it again. I commit it, and if it's > good it'll automatically be promoted and I'll never have to think about it > again. If it's bad, there's no harm in it being left there (and I don't ever > need to think about it again). I'm also negative on this idea. If people don't want things published, name the rule "T_" + something. After development is done, remove the "T_" prefix and publication happens if it's worthy. So why do we need to add in a new tflag to give us the same behavior? On the flip side, I can see the idea of "failing safely" -- ie: assume rules are in testing, unless someone specifically says no. IMO, people can just be expected to do the right thing and specify things in testing versus those which aren't. As for "If it's bad, there's no harm in it being left there" btw, that's not necessarily a good way to look at it. As much as "commit a rule and forget it" makes things easy, there is a cost involved. Specifically, all the nightly/weekly runs will use all the rules, so having cruft all over the place is not good. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
