Didn't realize this was a on list with my private reply....
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 04:51:08PM -0600, Chris Thielen wrote:
>George,
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>RDJ has always reported the version line of the updated ruleset.
>Ruleset authors can use this feature to get a one-line change
>description to RDJ users when they are emailed. Based on my RDJ run
>logs, it seems that this used to happen more than it does now, but of
>course that's up to the Ruleset authors...
>
>I suppose I could broaden the scope of the text returned for version
>reporting to allow for multiple lines, or explicitly code for changelog
>support.
The main work needs to come from the ruleset authors. I propose they
put a changes log in cf files, with special #@@# (look) comments.
I would expect changes to take a few to a few dozen lines... A url
for complete change log would be good to include here too.
>>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.
>>
>>
>When I get time I will revisit --lint. I also want to process linting
>each new file one at a time to try to isolate the broken files.
Not sure if that would work for anything but testing for valid ruleset,
a local cf might score a missing rule which is an error, and lint has
limited use if you somehow just check the downloaded file. I wouldn't
make it a high priority.
>>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).
>>
>I don't understand... I assume you would prefer the notification to not
>knowing it was updated at all...?
The behavior is fine, just add the output of "grep '#@@#' newfile.cf"
to the ${MESSAGES} whether lint failed or not. (Once changes get that
tag.) I can send you a diff to try unless you want to put it in...
So I guess the question is, do any of the ninja's want to create
comments for their changes?
// George
--
George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator Linux BSD IXOYE
http://galis.org/george/ cell:646-331-2027 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
