From: Garance A Drosihn [mailto:drosih_at_rpi.edu] > > 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... How about make the first line of the error message be: "This technique sometimes produces false positives... See http://.../ for more details"Received on Wed Mar 24 2004 - 16:15:28 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:48 UTC