On 17/03/09 at 15:51 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > I don't understand all the fuss about adding it in the PTS: it is > completely orthogonal to reporting the corresponding RC bug. Then, we > can decide how "strong" can be the way the PTS show the info. > > If there are really a lot of potential false positive, I concur that > the current way is too strong. Then we can just show the link, as we > show lintian links: if there is some failure the link will be there, > otherwise it will not be. > > Would that satisfy everybody?
I'm mainly concerned about the fact that if it mostly reports false positives, people will just ignore it, and it will be a missed opportunity. That's why I'd like it to be confirmed that the rate of false positives is more like 5% or 10% than like 90% or 95%, before a link is added on the PTS. In my experience, it was more like 95%, especially for upgrade tests. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
