On 5/17/2011 5:10 PM, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:

Update 1104058 on the update mirrors.

No real changes... the last round of issues were rules that triggered
code issues -- unavoidable, I think.

I've made one important improvement. Scores in the sandboxes are now
used to set the absolute maximum rule score (positive or negative).
Evolved scores may be less than the score value in the sandbox but
should not exceed it.

I plan to write a script to handle reverting to a known good update in
an emergency before I re-enable the updates. The script will need to be
run as updatesd on the Solaris zone and will have syntax something like:

./revert-stable-update 1083704

Usage details will follow when its ready. The script will:

- accept an update number (that will be on the update mirrors already)
- test the given update against the stable versions of SA
- update DNS immediately
- *maybe* automatically halt future automatic update generation

Daryl

How about we wait until we have the update system working again and we're happy with a newly generated rules tarball. At that point we cut 3.3.2-rc2 for more testing.

And before someone brings it up:
I know someone will want to reuse the "rc1" label since we never voted on its release. But by the time we're ready for the next cut, it would have already been a week or more with something called "rc1" in the wild and it would simply be TOO CONFUSING to folks to reuse the tag. There are over 210 people running my 3.3.2-rc1 test RPMS at the moment. I don't want to confuse them with another "rc1".

PLEASE allow it to be policy to never reuse a version name and number ever again. Numbers are cheap. We can use as many as we want.

Furthermore, I hope that we can have a final rc which is really meant to be a release candidate. If we vote to release that, then it gets recut as the actual 3.3.2 with zero code changes. This completely eliminates our confusing past practice of reusing numbers like last year's "Oops, this is the real 3.3.1, not that previous tarball of the same name!"

Warren Togami
[email protected]

Reply via email to