On 3/24/2004 7:15 PM, Don Bowman wrote: > 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" I like this idea. Anyone willing to commit such a change? If so, I'll get going on the web page and let you know when it's ready. Without such a blatant pointer I don't think the page would be useful enough to warrant creating it. JonReceived on Sat Mar 27 2004 - 01:26:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:49 UTC