A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-13 23:05]:
This issue also has frustrated me for some time, but I don't
think that we should be considering deleting reports. Reports
are just facts -- they have no value basis. Yes, people may make
judgments about the robustness of a module based on pass/fail
percentages, but I don't think we should alter the raw data.
Errm, here’s a question: in which way does it benefit *any* use
of the raw data to preserve those bogus reports, even annotated?
I can’t think of any reason why anyone would ever need to know
about those, but maybe my imagination is limited. Can you list
some?
Part of the problem comes in defining "bogus".
I know of at least a few developers that would consider a report to be
bogus if one of their dependencies cannot install. Now personally, I
consider that a failure on the part of BOTH of them.
One for failing, and the other for adding a compulsory dependency on
something that fails.
Now, BOTH of these interpretations are correct, because the other person
and I are using entirely different definitions of "bogus", based on our
separate contexts.
Once you get into deleting reports, you start getting into situations
where the author might start enforcing THEIR idea of bogus and discount
my issues completely, or vice versa.
It's just that the reporting system has a very limited view of what
should be stamped green, and what should be stamped red.
Adam K
