At 3:46 PM -0800 3/24/04, Kris Kennaway wrote: >On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 02:03:28PM -0600, Jon Noack wrote: > > Would it be helpful to put up a web page with all known lock > > order reversal false positives (or better yet all known lock > > order reversals with a status indication)? This would allow > > people to check there before reporting, saving everyone time. > >Clearly we need to do something to stop people reporting the same >non-bugs every day, the problem is that it needs to be somewhere >people are likely to check. Maybe a pointer to your proposed >webpage in UPDATING will help. Could we do something so we don't PRINT the false-positives? If we're about to turn 5.x-current into 5.x-stable, then it is not good to tell users "Here are a bunch of error messages that you should just ignore". At least in my experience, what happens is that users are much more likely to ignore *all* error messages. I have no idea what would need to be done, of course. I'm just uneasy at telling users to ignore scary-looking error messages. I do agree that a web page saying exactly which ones to ignore would be better than expecting end-users to figure that out by scanning the mailing lists... -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad_at_gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad_at_freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih_at_rpi.eduReceived on Wed Mar 24 2004 - 16:01:40 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:48 UTC