On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 05:19:38PM -0800, Robert Menschel wrote: >Hello George, > >Wednesday, February 16, 2005, 7:02:58 AM, you wrote: > >GG> Rather than squelching custom site rules, I think it more >GG> appropriate to verbosely report why rules become obsoleted (not >GG> necessarily in the new ruleset). Maybe a changes file for each cf >GG> file is appropriate? You cannot guarantee what or how anything is >GG> done in a local config, let the admin who created it address the >GG> changes too. > >The question then becomes, where to verbosely report these. Putting >into the config file probably doesn't help, since if RDJ sees the >--lint failure, it wipes out the config file that has the change >report, and if RDJ doesn't see a --lint failure, then there's no >reason for an admin to go looking for it. > >I'm open to suggestions.
I ended up looking but not finding a change log at: http://www.rulesemporium.com/rules.htm Maybe the way RDJ does the roll back needs be addressed? I know version 2 is nearing release, and this wouldn't be difficult to add: It could check the cf file for a grep-able, commented, "this release" changes entry, which may include a rules.htm#ChangesVerX url. Then if some change broke your site, you get a likely indicator why, right there beside the roll back commands, near the lint output. And if your update is multiple revisions behind, you have a url to get started on finding changes at the relevant revision. Actually, I like this proposed way of reporting changes a lot. I've always wondered the point of email notifications, "ruleset x has changed.." They kinda suggest I should do a diff and figure out if everything is really okay. I'd just assume see a change log as part of the notification that new rules have been loaded (or that lint prevented those changes from happening). // George -- George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator Linux BSD IXOYE http://galis.org/george/ cell:646-331-2027 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
