Le 13/09/2011 06:11, Kevin A. McGrail a écrit :
I've got our mirror up and running on IPv6 with an A quad record for
sa-update.pccc.com.
We've got more issues to work out with sa-update to allow pure IPv6
systems to get updates but I am hoping some people might be able to test
if they can get
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6658
Bug #: 6658
Summary: Version 3.2.5 looks like it would be reasonable to
install according to web site
Product: Spamassassin
Version: unspecified
Platform: All
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6658
Darxus dar...@chaosreigns.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6658
Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
On 09/13, bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org wrote:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6658
The Apache SpamAssassin project goal is to produce three major or minor
release per year with release candidates proposed on or closely to January
30th, April 30th,
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6658
--- Comment #3 from Kevin A. McGrail kmcgr...@pccc.com 2011-09-13 19:47:02
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
Maybe Please don't use this, no updates since 2008 would be better.
Agreed.
The PMC agreed to
Woo. September 30th will be a 3.4.0 release candidate, right? Who gets to
be release manager this time?
I think the general consensus was *not* to branch 3.4.0 off of trunk, but
to leave it in trunk, and just do releases from trunk for a while?
Time to wrap up some last minute bugs. Which
On 09/13, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
re: 3.4.0RC. Hard to say if it's 3.3.X or a 3.4.X. We have the
minor API change with one variable is about the only reason to call
it 3.4 because that API change needs to wait for a major release.
I'm not sure ANYTHING else classifies as a major change.
On 2011-09-13 22:23, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
We waste so much time backporting to the last branch. And trunk has been
incredibly stable. I hate to see releases that aren't taken from trunk,
seems like a waste of time and effort.
for once I agree with Darxus :)
There are a few usefull
On 9/13/2011 4:29 PM, Axb wrote:
On 2011-09-13 22:23, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
We waste so much time backporting to the last branch. And trunk has
been
incredibly stable. I hate to see releases that aren't taken from trunk,
seems like a waste of time and effort.
for once I agree with
On 2011-09-13 23:35, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 9/13/2011 4:29 PM, Axb wrote:
On 2011-09-13 22:23, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
We waste so much time backporting to the last branch. And trunk has
been
incredibly stable. I hate to see releases that aren't taken from trunk,
seems like a
On 13/09/2011 5:35 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 9/13/2011 4:29 PM, Axb wrote:
On 2011-09-13 22:23, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
We waste so much time backporting to the last branch. And trunk has been
incredibly stable. I hate to see releases that aren't taken from trunk,
seems like a
On 2011-09-13 22:23, dar...@chaosreigns.com wrote:
We waste so much time backporting to the last branch. And trunk has been
incredibly stable. I hate to see releases that aren't taken from trunk,
seems like a waste of time and effort.
for once I agree with Darxus :)
There are a few
There are a few usefull additions/fixes in 3.4 trunk which won't ever
get backported and it would be a pity to have to wait
Why not back port the few features/fixes?
diff -U2 sa-3.3 sa-3.4 | (cd sa-3.3; patch)
:)
Seems to me the 3.4 (trunk) is being much better tested by
active
On 09/13, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Why not back port the few features/fixes?
Because trunk works as well as 3.3, it's stable, and there's no reason to
put off releasing it, and no reason to do another 3.3 release.
Why not do a release from trunk?
I'm quite uncomfortable with that myself,
On 13/09/2011 8:29 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
Alex, what are your thoughts on NOT creating a 3.4 branch and continuing
with trunk for development? You seem to be pro the concept above and it
makes sense that if we switch to rtc on trunk say 1 week or so before a
release date as defined in the
*** ASF Nagios ***
Notification Type: RECOVERY
Host: spamassassin.zones.apache.org
Address: 140.211.11.80
State: UP
Info: PING WARNING - Packet loss = 80%, RTA = 160.54 ms
Date/Time: Wed Sept 14 05:22:45 UTC 2011
*** ASF Nagios ***
Notification Type: PROBLEM
Host: spamassassin.zones.apache.org
Address: 140.211.11.80
State: DOWN
Info: CRITICAL - Network Unreachable (140.211.11.80)
Date/Time: Wed Sept 14 05:22:43 UTC 2011
18 matches
Mail list logo
