On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 03:36:42PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 29/12/2019 23:13, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:00:08PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > >> fixups in bugdb.py - and that way benefit both from reposurgeon making > >> choices that are as conservatively safe as possible, which seems a > >> desirable property for problem cases that haven't been manually reviewed, > > > > Problem cases that haven't been manually reviewed should *be* manually > > reviewed, or the heuristics improved so there are fewer problem cases. > > > > Thank you for offering to help with the checking. > > ;-)
I am telling you what you (imo) need to do at a minimum to make your candidate conversion acceptable, if it has the problems you say it has. To make it not be super much work, I'd do the second option: better heuristics. Those in Maxim's conversion have been great since over half a year, you could borrow some, or peek for inspiration? I have no interest in improving another candidate conversion, as I'm sure you realise. And I'm supposed to have time off now ;-) If you guys want to ever finish, you'll need to drop the quest for perfection, because this leads to a) much more work, and b) worse quality in the end. And before you protest, please look at the evidence again. *Your own* evidence. HTH, this is supposed to be constructive, not a flame, Best wishes, Segher
