On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 14:10:15 +0100, zimoun wrote: > Well, your comment is pointing: a) that the description is badly > written and b) the 'relevance' score is too rough.
[...] > The real problem is not the non-obvious name (ghc-pandoc instead of > simply pandoc) but it is: a) some descriptions are badly written and > b) the 'relevance' scoring function is not enough "smart" to detect > them. Thank you for taking the time to explain this. -- Mike Gerwitz
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
