On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 13:39 -1000, Warren Togami Jr. wrote:
> On 01/18/2011 01:35 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> >> In any case, I looked at update-rules-3.3 as JM suggested would work. I
> >> think I know how it works. But I dare not run it without clarification
> >> from JM (which server to run it upon, what user, what directory) because
> >> I don't want to screw up the production sa-update channel. I haven't
> >> heard back from JM.
> >
> > So the process needs to be documented better? In this case, we would
> > need instructions for tarball surgery, toning down a score, and manually
> > push the result.
>
> And GPG signing.
Right, good point.
> Although is manual tarball surgery really the answer here?
It's a single bad rule. The obvious fix is, to score it zero.
I don't see us talking about automatic re-scoring, which would be an
entirely different topic. The last sa-update tarball is 3 weeks old.
While it *would* have pushed the updated rule-set by now, it seems to be
too complex to be required, just to get rid of a bad rule that never
should have been published to begin with.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
