Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: SpamAssassin: devel

3.3.0 plans

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All SpamAssassin devel RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


wtogami at redhat

May 28, 2009, 11:35 AM

Post #26 of 60 (1667 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

On 05/28/2009 03:48 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
> It would be quite possible to do this, given a sufficiently-dedicated
> release guy pushing
> it. It takes about 2 months to get through mass-checks, generate good scores,
> etc. Unfortunately, I'm out for this job, as child #2 is about to be born any
> day now ;)
>
> BTW in the short term, if ppl want to help 3.3.0 release plans, I suggest trying
> out the SVN trunk code as "dogfood". I've been doing this for the last couple
> of years with very good results; I can't recall the last time I had to
> restart my
> spamd, for example, or spotted an FP...
>
> --j.

Is the release process and tools used documented? Anyone else from the
core team might be able to do it?

Warren Togami
wtogami [at] redhat


jm at jmason

May 28, 2009, 1:05 PM

Post #27 of 60 (1678 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 19:35, Warren Togami <wtogami [at] redhat> wrote:
> On 05/28/2009 03:48 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>
>> It would be quite possible to do this, given a sufficiently-dedicated
>> release guy pushing
>> it.  It takes about 2 months to get through mass-checks, generate good
>> scores,
>> etc.  Unfortunately, I'm out for this job, as child #2 is about to be born
>> any
>> day now ;)
>>
>> BTW in the short term, if ppl want to help 3.3.0 release plans, I suggest
>> trying
>> out the SVN trunk code as "dogfood".  I've been doing this for the last
>> couple
>> of years with very good results; I can't recall the last time I had to
>> restart my
>> spamd, for example, or spotted an FP...
>>
>> --j.
>
> Is the release process and tools used documented?  Anyone else from the core
> team might be able to do it?

AFAIK, yep...

--j.


Mark.Martinec+sa at ijs

Jun 24, 2009, 8:28 AM

Post #28 of 60 (1579 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

Sorry for my late response, and bringing the topic back to the list
(with some quotes omitted).

Warren Togami writes:
> Might it be feasible to get 3.3.0 out sometime during the Fedora 12 dev
> cycle? It seems there is maybe 2-3 months. A fresh spamassassin making
> this release might possibly be particularly more important than other
> releases for unnamed reasons...

Justin writes:
> It would be quite possible to do this, given a sufficiently-dedicated
> release guy pushing it. It takes about 2 months to get through
> mass-checks, generate good scores, etc. Unfortunately, I'm out for this
> job, as child #2 is about to be born any day now ;)
>
> BTW in the short term, if ppl want to help 3.3.0 release plans, I suggest
> trying out the SVN trunk code as "dogfood". I've been doing this for the
> last couple of years with very good results; I can't recall the last time
> I had to restart my spamd, for example, or spotted an FP...

I've also been running a fresh 3.3 in production at our site for more
than a year now, mostly because it provides bug fixes and some new
features or workarounds that I need. For example with a Perl upgrade
to 5.8.9 (and later to 5.10.0) on FreeBSD ports the old 3.2.5 just
couldn't survive any longer without crashing due to exceeded stack
size while compiling our set of rules (a perl bug).

I can confirm that 3.3 fares at least as well as 3.2.5, and in
many ways better. I do monitor for possible glitches, but there
just aren't any (new ones that is, that would not also be in 3.2.5).
I may also add that the more recent versions of amavisd-new are
happier with 3.3 than with 3.2.5, as this enables some nice SA
functionality (like SA timing breakdown reports, DKIM checking
of long mail messages).

The trouble with only a handful of sites running the new code is
that not all features are exercised, and not all setups tested.

Then there is a concern that some of the fixes for old bug reports
would still be nice to get into a 3.3 before a release, and some
nice features added/finished. Given the current progress trends
this is unfortunately just stretching time to a release, rising
a feeling that "it just isn't ripe yet". We might consider just
setting our goal/expectations closer to ground, and come out with
what we have.

> I'm pretty sure this won't be achievable in that timeframe if I'm
> driving the release process [...] while I'm busy running after babies ;)
> guys, I can totally provide advice/guidance as to how to go about
> this, if you feel up to it.
>
> basically this wiki page describes the basic idea of how to put
> together a new x.y.0 release:
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ReleasePolicy
>
> the biggest task is working through this:
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/RescoreMassCheck

On my part I've spent less time lately on SpamAssassin then
I would like. Getting the amavis release out, preparing for
a conference, and then there will be a vacation time for me,
so I won't be of much help until the end of July.

I wonder if there's anything we could do without too much
trouble to let more people start using the 3.3 code from CVS.
I suppose there are still nightly tarball builds? (I haven't
checked). Perhaps just giving an encouraging hint every now
and then on a mailing list could be a good start.

Mark


quanah at zimbra

Jun 24, 2009, 11:11 AM

Post #29 of 60 (1573 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

--On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:28 PM +0200 Mark Martinec
<Mark.Martinec+sa [at] ijs> wrote:



> On my part I've spent less time lately on SpamAssassin then
> I would like. Getting the amavis release out, preparing for
> a conference, and then there will be a vacation time for me,
> so I won't be of much help until the end of July.
>
> I wonder if there's anything we could do without too much
> trouble to let more people start using the 3.3 code from CVS.
> I suppose there are still nightly tarball builds? (I haven't
> checked). Perhaps just giving an encouraging hint every now
> and then on a mailing list could be a good start.

Maybe a public alpha or beta release? So folks know it isn't official, but
can start testing it out.

--Quanah

--

Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra, Inc
--------------------
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration


felicity at kluge

Jun 24, 2009, 1:21 PM

Post #30 of 60 (1570 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

fwiw, the process used to be:
- beta releases to get things stabilized
- use a beta release to do mass-check runs
- generate scores with mass-check data and submit to svn
- rc releases to get wider testing w/ scores
- release after rc appear to work



On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount<quanah [at] zimbra> wrote:
> --On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:28 PM +0200 Mark Martinec
> <Mark.Martinec+sa [at] ijs> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On my part I've spent less time lately on SpamAssassin then
>> I would like. Getting the amavis release out, preparing for
>> a conference, and then there will be a vacation time for me,
>> so I won't be of much help until the end of July.
>>
>> I wonder if there's anything we could do without too much
>> trouble to let more people start using the 3.3 code from CVS.
>> I suppose there are still nightly tarball builds? (I haven't
>> checked). Perhaps just giving an encouraging hint every now
>> and then on a mailing list could be a good start.
>
> Maybe a public alpha or beta release?  So folks know it isn't official, but
> can start testing it out.
>
> --Quanah
>
> --
>
> Quanah Gibson-Mount
> Principal Software Engineer
> Zimbra, Inc
> --------------------
> Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
>


jm at jmason

Jun 24, 2009, 1:35 PM

Post #31 of 60 (1572 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 19:11, Quanah Gibson-Mount<quanah [at] zimbra> wrote:
> --On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:28 PM +0200 Mark Martinec
> <Mark.Martinec+sa [at] ijs> wrote:
>
>> On my part I've spent less time lately on SpamAssassin then
>> I would like. Getting the amavis release out, preparing for
>> a conference, and then there will be a vacation time for me,
>> so I won't be of much help until the end of July.
>>
>> I wonder if there's anything we could do without too much
>> trouble to let more people start using the 3.3 code from CVS.
>> I suppose there are still nightly tarball builds? (I haven't
>> checked). Perhaps just giving an encouraging hint every now
>> and then on a mailing list could be a good start.
>
> Maybe a public alpha or beta release? So folks know it isn't official, but
> can start testing it out.

A public alpha might be a good option. The main stuff we need to do
after that would be procedural changes and score generation.

--j.

> --Quanah
>
> --
>
> Quanah Gibson-Mount
> Principal Software Engineer
> Zimbra, Inc
> --------------------
> Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
>
>


jm at jmason

Jun 24, 2009, 1:37 PM

Post #32 of 60 (1571 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 21:21, Theo Van Dinter<felicity [at] kluge> wrote:
> fwiw, the process used to be:
> - beta releases to get things stabilized
> - use a beta release to do mass-check runs
> - generate scores with mass-check data and submit to svn

I think we may be able to simplify that, now that Daryl's system is
generating scores weekly...

Also one hard part that we need to do is finish the "no rules in main
tarball" work item.

> - rc releases to get wider testing w/ scores
> - release after rc appear to work
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount<quanah [at] zimbra> wrote:
>> --On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:28 PM +0200 Mark Martinec
>> <Mark.Martinec+sa [at] ijs> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On my part I've spent less time lately on SpamAssassin then
>>> I would like. Getting the amavis release out, preparing for
>>> a conference, and then there will be a vacation time for me,
>>> so I won't be of much help until the end of July.
>>>
>>> I wonder if there's anything we could do without too much
>>> trouble to let more people start using the 3.3 code from CVS.
>>> I suppose there are still nightly tarball builds? (I haven't
>>> checked). Perhaps just giving an encouraging hint every now
>>> and then on a mailing list could be a good start.
>>
>> Maybe a public alpha or beta release?  So folks know it isn't official, but
>> can start testing it out.
>>
>> --Quanah
>>
>> --
>>
>> Quanah Gibson-Mount
>> Principal Software Engineer
>> Zimbra, Inc
>> --------------------
>> Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
>>
>
>


jm at jmason

Jun 24, 2009, 3:00 PM

Post #33 of 60 (1571 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 21:37, Justin Mason<jm [at] jmason> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 21:21, Theo Van Dinter<felicity [at] kluge> wrote:
>> fwiw, the process used to be:
>> - beta releases to get things stabilized
>> - use a beta release to do mass-check runs
>> - generate scores with mass-check data and submit to svn
>
> I think we may be able to simplify that, now that Daryl's system is
> generating scores weekly...
>
> Also one hard part that we need to do is finish the "no rules in main
> tarball" work item.

which I've just done ;)

is there anything else that we should sort out before an alpha is viable?

--j.

>> - rc releases to get wider testing w/ scores
>> - release after rc appear to work
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount<quanah [at] zimbra> wrote:
>>> --On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:28 PM +0200 Mark Martinec
>>> <Mark.Martinec+sa [at] ijs> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On my part I've spent less time lately on SpamAssassin then
>>>> I would like. Getting the amavis release out, preparing for
>>>> a conference, and then there will be a vacation time for me,
>>>> so I won't be of much help until the end of July.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if there's anything we could do without too much
>>>> trouble to let more people start using the 3.3 code from CVS.
>>>> I suppose there are still nightly tarball builds? (I haven't
>>>> checked). Perhaps just giving an encouraging hint every now
>>>> and then on a mailing list could be a good start.
>>>
>>> Maybe a public alpha or beta release?  So folks know it isn't official, but
>>> can start testing it out.
>>>
>>> --Quanah
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Quanah Gibson-Mount
>>> Principal Software Engineer
>>> Zimbra, Inc
>>> --------------------
>>> Zimbra ::  the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
>>>
>>
>>
>


guenther at rudersport

Jun 24, 2009, 4:58 PM

Post #34 of 60 (1578 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 23:00 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> is there anything else that we should sort out before an alpha is viable?

I believe re-thinking the minimum supported Perl version and related
stuff like screwing MakeMaker would be a *really* good target for a new
$minor release.

How much longer do we want to support Perl 5.6.x? There are comments in
bugzilla from years ago, that there's virtually no system without Perl
5.8.x for years (counting from the comment, not today).

I'd seriously prefer a "drop support for < Perl 5.8.1" in a separate
thread, though.


--
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; }}}


jm at jmason

Jun 25, 2009, 1:51 AM

Post #35 of 60 (1557 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

2009/6/25 Karsten Bräckelmann <guenther [at] rudersport>:
> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 23:00 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>> is there anything else that we should sort out before an alpha is viable?
>
> I believe re-thinking the minimum supported Perl version and related
> stuff like screwing MakeMaker would be a *really* good target for a new
> $minor release.
>
> How much longer do we want to support Perl 5.6.x? There are comments in
> bugzilla from years ago, that there's virtually no system without Perl
> 5.8.x for years (counting from the comment, not today).
>
> I'd seriously prefer a "drop support for < Perl 5.8.1" in a separate
> thread, though.

I've done that -- and on the users@ list, since a lot of potential
commenters don't read dev@. (I've also cc'd my blog to catch the
Planet Perl readers.)

my guess is it'll be doable.

--j.


jm at jmason

Jun 29, 2009, 4:44 AM

Post #36 of 60 (1453 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

ok! Here's what I see in bugzilla right now:

ID Sev Pri OS Assignee Status Resolution Summary
6077 maj P1 All dev [at] spamassassin NEW fix failing tests
6131 maj P1 All dev [at] spamassassin NEW Makefile.PL is
doing evil things to detect DESTDIR
6139 maj P1 All dev [at] spamassassin NEW remove
"rulesrc" external from SVN tree
5553 nor P1 All dev [at] spamassassin ASSI
MIME_BASE64_TEXT does not handle charset properly
5871 enh P1 All dev [at] spamassassin REOP need docs for
new '--filter-retries' spamc switch

[.so those are the 5 P1s. these are all things that should be done
before a release, but none of them are blockers IMO.]

4949 nor P2 Free dev [at] spamassassin NEW spamd shutting
down when unable to fork new processes
5591 nor P2 Sola dev [at] spamassassin NEW make test
fails at spamd_hup test on Solaris 9, 10
6132 enh P2 All dev [at] spamassassin REOP FreeMail plugin

[would be nice to get done but again not blockers.]

everything else on the 3.3.0 milestone can be pushed off if nobody
gets the tuits to do them.
I think we could conceivably start the 3.3.0 release process soon....
paging Warren ;)

How's about I cut an alpha at the end of this week?

--j.


On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 23:00, Justin Mason<jm [at] jmason> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 21:37, Justin Mason<jm [at] jmason> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 21:21, Theo Van Dinter<felicity [at] kluge> wrote:
>>> fwiw, the process used to be:
>>> - beta releases to get things stabilized
>>> - use a beta release to do mass-check runs
>>> - generate scores with mass-check data and submit to svn
>>
>> I think we may be able to simplify that, now that Daryl's system is
>> generating scores weekly...
>>
>> Also one hard part that we need to do is finish the "no rules in main
>> tarball" work item.
>
> which I've just done ;)
>
> is there anything else that we should sort out before an alpha is viable?
>
> --j.
>
>>> - rc releases to get wider testing w/ scores
>>> - release after rc appear to work


wtogami at redhat

Jun 29, 2009, 8:27 AM

Post #37 of 60 (1452 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

On 06/29/2009 07:44 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
> How's about I cut an alpha at the end of this week?
>

Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers?

Warren


jm at jmason

Jun 29, 2009, 8:59 AM

Post #38 of 60 (1445 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 16:27, Warren Togami<wtogami [at] redhat> wrote:
> On 06/29/2009 07:44 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>
>> How's about I cut an alpha at the end of this week?
>>
>
> Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers?

ok ok. good point ;)

Let's give it 3 days to garner some comments and possibly close out a
few of those P1s and P2s. Wednesday evening...

--j.


Mark.Martinec+sa at ijs

Jun 29, 2009, 2:24 PM

Post #39 of 60 (1442 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

Justin wrote:

> > Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers?
>
> ok ok. good point ;)
>
> Let's give it 3 days to garner some comments and possibly close out a
> few of those P1s and P2s. Wednesday evening...

Wednesday evening is good (or even Thursday),
I could announce its availability on Friday at a German mail server conference
http://www.heinlein-support.de/web/akademie/mailserver-konferenz-2009/

Mark


jm at jmason

Jun 29, 2009, 2:36 PM

Post #40 of 60 (1444 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 22:24, Mark Martinec<Mark.Martinec+sa [at] ijs> wrote:
> Justin wrote:
>
>> > Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers?
>>
>> ok ok.  good point ;)
>>
>> Let's give it 3 days to garner some comments and possibly close out a
>> few of those P1s and P2s.  Wednesday evening...
>
> Wednesday evening is good (or even Thursday),
> I could announce its availability on Friday at a German mail server conference
> http://www.heinlein-support.de/web/akademie/mailserver-konferenz-2009/

great! we'll need to get 3 +1's from committers to release it though ;) given
that you and I will be 2 of those, hopefully, I don't think this will
be a problem.

--j.


guenther at rudersport

Jun 29, 2009, 4:32 PM

Post #41 of 60 (1435 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:51 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> 2009/6/25 Karsten Bräckelmann <guenther [at] rudersport>:

> > I believe re-thinking the minimum supported Perl version and related
> > stuff like screwing MakeMaker would be a *really* good target for a new
> > $minor release.
> >
> > How much longer do we want to support Perl 5.6.x? [...]

> my guess is it'll be doable.

BTW, since you're about to push an alpha release...

Did we decide about that yet? :) Is the priority bumping of the
MakeMaker bug an implicit death sentence for Perl 5.6 support, or do we
want a separate bug to track bumping requirements in two places?

See my concerns about carrying around old baggage and a need to support
Perl 5.6 for important back-ports until the end of the 3.4 live-time, if
we miss this opportunity.


--
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; }}}


Mark.Martinec+sa at ijs

Jun 29, 2009, 4:56 PM

Post #42 of 60 (1434 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

On Tuesday 30 June 2009 01:32:16 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> BTW, since you're about to push an alpha release...
>
> Did we decide about that yet? :)

Not really, but it seems to be a moment of a sparkling desire
among devels, perhaps too good to be missed, before everybody
leaves for vacation (or babysitting) ;)

> Is the priority bumping of the
> MakeMaker bug an implicit death sentence for Perl 5.6 support, or do we
> want a separate bug to track bumping requirements in two places?
>
> See my concerns about carrying around old baggage and a need to support
> Perl 5.6 for important back-ports until the end of the 3.4 live-time, if
> we miss this opportunity.

I'm all for abandoning perl 5.6 with 3.3, although I can accept it one way
or another. For those in need of perl 5.6 there will still be a 3.2.*.

Mark


kmcgrail at pccc

Jun 29, 2009, 5:01 PM

Post #43 of 60 (1438 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

I would easily vote to require a MakeMaker version if that is the only
requirement to keep 5.6.X support to move this release forward. Anyone
supporting a 5.6.x install should be capable of installing requirements that
don't necessarily require an entirely new version.

However, I don't support an age-range for supporting perl because even 5.8
is already nearly 7 years old having been release in July 2002.

Regards,
KAM


----- Original Message -----
From: "Karsten Bräckelmann" <guenther [at] rudersport>
To: <dev [at] spamassassin>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: 3.3.0 plans


> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:51 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>> 2009/6/25 Karsten Bräckelmann <guenther [at] rudersport>:
>
>> > I believe re-thinking the minimum supported Perl version and related
>> > stuff like screwing MakeMaker would be a *really* good target for a new
>> > $minor release.
>> >
>> > How much longer do we want to support Perl 5.6.x? [...]
>
>> my guess is it'll be doable.
>
> BTW, since you're about to push an alpha release...
>
> Did we decide about that yet? :) Is the priority bumping of the
> MakeMaker bug an implicit death sentence for Perl 5.6 support, or do we
> want a separate bug to track bumping requirements in two places?
>
> See my concerns about carrying around old baggage and a need to support
> Perl 5.6 for important back-ports until the end of the 3.4 live-time, if
> we miss this opportunity.
>
>
> --
> 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; }}}
>


kmcgrail at pccc

Jun 29, 2009, 5:05 PM

Post #44 of 60 (1436 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

> I'm all for abandoning perl 5.6 with 3.3, although I can accept it one way
> or another. For those in need of perl 5.6 there will still be a 3.2.*.

Please don't say that. I think we'd like to envision the death of old
versions and the support of the new tree only as soon as feasible! I'd
prefer to write documentation on workarounds such as installing an alternate
and newer perl alongside the distributions release, using cpan to install
any necessary modules, and making sure that their install of SA runs with
/usr/local/perl5.8/bin/perl. I've never tried this but the theory seems
more than sound to me.

Regards,
KAM


guenther at rudersport

Jun 29, 2009, 5:27 PM

Post #45 of 60 (1436 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 20:01 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> I would easily vote to require a MakeMaker version if that is the only
> requirement to keep 5.6.X support to move this release forward. Anyone
> supporting a 5.6.x install should be capable of installing requirements that
> don't necessarily require an entirely new version.

As I've said before (and IIRC Mark implied with his comment 2 years ago
in bugzilla), I'm not about dropping the torch for 5.6. But instead, do
not *claim* we'll always support 5.6.

If it works with 5.6 and some updated Perl modules like MakeMaker, good.
If we can fix an issue for 5.6, good. But do not promise we'll fix and
workaround Perl 5.6 issues, maintaining SA 3.3 until the end of 3.4 --
whenever that'll be. Keep the door open to not back-port critical issues
with Perl 5.6 in 2012, when there's no chance to test it with 5.6 on all
platforms without major headaches.

Essentially we would promise actively supporting any issues with Perl
5.8, but not necessarily fix it for 5.6, too.


> However, I don't support an age-range for supporting perl because even 5.8
> is already nearly 7 years old having been release in July 2002.

It's not about an age-range of obsolete versions being introduced, but
superseded. Don't think "Perl 5.8 is 7 years old", but "5.6 went old 7
years ago". How long is that for 5.8?


> > Did we decide about that yet? :) Is the priority bumping of the
> > MakeMaker bug an implicit death sentence for Perl 5.6 support, or do we
> > want a separate bug to track bumping requirements in two places?
> >
> > See my concerns about carrying around old baggage and a need to support
> > Perl 5.6 for important back-ports until the end of the 3.4 live-time, if
> > we miss this opportunity.

--
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; }}}


kmcgrail at pccc

Jun 29, 2009, 5:32 PM

Post #46 of 60 (1437 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

> Essentially we would promise actively supporting any issues with Perl
> 5.8, but not necessarily fix it for 5.6, too.

I agree fully with your statements on this!

> It's not about an age-range of obsolete versions being introduced, but
> superseded. Don't think "Perl 5.8 is 7 years old", but "5.6 went old 7
> years ago". How long is that for 5.8?

You make a good point but arbitrary rules are hard with Perl. Perl in
practice is just too good in that modules have made it easier to keep
running for existing installations and security issues that necessitate an
outright upgrade have been minimal. Code-forks are a reason to consider
supporting the next version, though. Code-forks are evil personified.

Regards,
KAM


sidney at sidney

Jun 30, 2009, 1:25 AM

Post #47 of 60 (1414 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

Karsten Bräckelmann wrote, On 30/6/09 12:27 PM:
> Essentially we would promise actively supporting any issues with Perl
> 5.8, but not necessarily fix it for 5.6, too.

That sounds to me very much like declaring 5.6 as deprecated.

Would that have the right connotations for what both of you have been
talking about?

-- sidney


jm at jmason

Jun 30, 2009, 1:47 AM

Post #48 of 60 (1411 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

2009/6/30 Karsten Bräckelmann <guenther [at] rudersport>:
> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:51 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>> 2009/6/25 Karsten Bräckelmann <guenther [at] rudersport>:
>
>> > I believe re-thinking the minimum supported Perl version and related
>> > stuff like screwing MakeMaker would be a *really* good target for a new
>> > $minor release.
>> >
>> > How much longer do we want to support Perl 5.6.x? [...]
>
>> my guess is it'll be doable.
>
> BTW, since you're about to push an alpha release...
>
> Did we decide about that yet? :)  Is the priority bumping of the
> MakeMaker bug an implicit death sentence for Perl 5.6 support, or do we
> want a separate bug to track bumping requirements in two places?

We should have a separate bug for that.

note that again, this issue isn't a blocker for the alpha release. we
can do an alpha before deciding that.
(we may have to add a min-version requirement to Makefile.PL for
ExtUtils::MakeMaker though.)

--j.


wtogami at redhat

Jul 3, 2009, 11:29 AM

Post #49 of 60 (1305 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

On 06/29/2009 11:59 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 16:27, Warren Togami<wtogami [at] redhat> wrote:
>> On 06/29/2009 07:44 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>> How's about I cut an alpha at the end of this week?
>>>
>> Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers?
>
> ok ok. good point ;)
>
> Let's give it 3 days to garner some comments and possibly close out a
> few of those P1s and P2s. Wednesday evening...
>
> --j.

How is this going?

Warren


mkettler_sa at verizon

Jul 3, 2009, 7:37 PM

Post #50 of 60 (1290 views)
Permalink
Re: 3.3.0 plans [In reply to]

Warren Togami wrote:
> On 06/29/2009 11:59 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 16:27, Warren Togami<wtogami [at] redhat> wrote:
>>> On 06/29/2009 07:44 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>>> How's about I cut an alpha at the end of this week?
>>>>
>>> Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers?
>>
>> ok ok. good point ;)
>>
>> Let's give it 3 days to garner some comments and possibly close out a
>> few of those P1s and P2s. Wednesday evening...
>>
>> --j.
>
> How is this going?
>
> Warren
>
>
The public alpha release was announced yesterday on the users mailing list:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/%3C6c399e450907021522k1678f0ffn454a1e670f064b40 [at] mail%3E

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All SpamAssassin devel RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.