Chris Santerre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sounds like a dev devoted just to rules?
My experience is that assigning people to be "devoted" to just one area
of a project doesn't work so great. Yeah, I'm looking for people who
are more interested in doing rules development (and rules development is
a bit easier than doing stuff in the perl code), but we're always
looking for people and all committers are always going to be welcome to
work on everything. (New committers are going to be expected to have
their stuff reviewed a bit more closely via bugzilla, though.)
> So am I to believe that there will be daily updates in SA 3.0? This is
> the killer question. This is why people feel they are required to use
> SARE rules. Because without them, they get spam ;)
In the long run, I expect it will work like this:
- stable tree (which we have, but has been very inactive since 2.6x)
- most of the tree is release code
- a new part of the tree will be devoted to development of update
rules (which are also eventually pushed into the release code)
- development tree (which is usually active)
The new part of the stable tree might look something like this:
updates/75_updates.cf -> scored rules ultimately pulled by users via cron
updates/80_testing.cf -> rules still under internal testing
> Where can I find more info on SVN?
General information about subversion: best place is the SVN book
(google for "subversion book")
Specific information about our tree:
http://www.spamassassin.org/hacking.html
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DownloadFromSvn
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan anti-spam (SpamAssassin), Linux,
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/ and open source consulting
