Garance A Drosihn wrote: > 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... I'm assuming WITNESS et al. will be turned off by default for 5.3-stable. So most users will never see these messages. And I doubt a webpage will stop folks from reporting this. Maybe a big note at the top of UPDATING would help. Richard Coleman richardcoleman_at_mindspring.comReceived on Wed Mar 24 2004 - 16:16:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:48 UTC