Checkgroups handling

[Russ Allbery]

Julien ÉLIE <julien at trigofacile.com> writes:

> Why not something like that:
>
>  foo.bar1
>  foo.bar2.first
>  foo.bar2.second
>  foo.bar3.first
>  foo.bar3.second
>  foo.bar4
>  foo.bar5
>
> checkgroups:from:foo.*:verify-key-foo
> checkgroups:from:foo.bar2.*:doit
> checkgroups:from:foo.bar3.*:mail
> checkgroups:from:foo.bar5:drop
>
> (4) => exclusion-list=foo.bar5
> (3) => We check for foo.bar3.first and foo.bar3.second in foo.bar3.*
>       (minus the exclusion-list) and mail the result.
>       exclusion-list=foo.bar5,foo.bar3.*
> (2) => We check for foo.bar2.first and foo.bar2.second in foo.bar2.*
>       (minus the exclusion-list) and do the necessary changes.
>       exclusion-list=foo.bar5,foo.bar3.*,foo.bar2.*
> (1) => We check for foo.bar1 and foo.bar4 in foo.* (minus the
>       exclusion-list) and do the necessary changes if the checkgroups
>       is verified.

I like that.  I didn't think about the exclusion list idea, but of course
that makes it much more straightforward to do subsequent processing.  And,
of course, if the exclusion list excludes everything, we do nothing for
that line, which takes care of the complete overrides.

Yes, that sounds like exactlyt he right thing to do.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

    Please send questions to the list rather than mailing me directly.
     <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.