On Wednesday 11 September 2002 16:19 CET Justin Mason wrote:
> Malte S. Stretz said:
>[...]
> > I think we should even add new (GA'd) rules to 2.4x (and/or remove old
> > ones) and tag a new 2.50 only if we have a bunch of features worth a
> > "dangerous" big update. I'd say: Yes, you should expect 2.42 and also
> > 2.43+ (but update to 2.41 now).
>
> I would think adding new rules to, or removing broken rules from, 2.4x
> would require some discussion first.  but new GA'd scores are definitely
> worth putting in, as the ones there are too wild.
I think my mail wasn't very clear ;-) My point was that we should continue
releasing new rules and removing broken ones (all based on discussions on
this list of course) in the 2.4 branch instead of creating a new 2.5 branch
everytime we have a bunch of new rules.
A new branch should be openend only if (big) new features are introduced
(eg. Bayes) or the interface has changed (spam_level_char=x). As the rules
are under fluent development, the user has to update quite regularly. But
currently he couldn't be shure if the new release will break anything in
his setup (like -F going away). So if we say "the branches are stable to
the outside and just improved under the surface but you have to watch out
when you update to a new minor version number", users and sysadmins could
be less reluctant to update.
All just IMHO :o)
Malte
P.S.: I'll be away from my box and my mail account for one week, starting
tomorrow. So happy coding for the next week :-)
--
--- Coding is art.
--

from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5787F16F03
	for <jm@localhost>; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:52:21 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:52:21 +0100 (IST)
from usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net (usw-sf-fw2.sourceforge.net
    [216.136.171.252]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
    g8BKfNC31298 for <jm-sa@jmason.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:41:23 +0100
from usw-sf-list1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.13]
    helo=usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net) by usw-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with
    esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17pEGQ-0003qY-00; Wed,
    11 Sep 2002 13:39:06 -0700
from relay07.indigo.ie ([194.125.133.231]) by
    usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id
    17pEGA-0006VF-00 for <spamassassin-talk@lists.sourceforge.net>;
    Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:38:50 -0700
from ts12-225.dublin.indigo.ie (HELO spamassassin.taint.org)
    (194.125.172.225) by relay07.indigo.ie (qp 12218) with SMTP;
    11 Sep 2002 20:38:46 -0000
by spamassassin.taint.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 662ED16F03;
    Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:38:45 +0100 (IST)
from spamassassin.taint.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamassassin.taint.org (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 63077F7B1; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:38:45 +0100 (IST)
Re: [SAtalk] Yeah right... If spamassassin was looking through th
    is mail, it would have marked it as spam.
Message from Robert Strickler <Robert.Strickler@us.net56.net>
    of
    "Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:10:49 CDT."
    <0FCA00EE04CDD3119C910050041FBA703A67F3@ilpostoffice.main.net56.net>
From spamassassin-talk-admin@lists.sourceforge.net  Wed Sep 11 21:52:21 2002