On 22/02/2010 8:43 PM, John Hardin wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote: >> I think both rules are getting bounced in and out due to the fluctuation >> of who's been submitting results over the last week due to the bad rule >> that got checked in (plus I don't currently submit Sunday night results >> right now). > > Yeah, there _is_ quite a bit of fluctuation.
I'd imagine that should tone down this week. Although, looking at the code that Sidney pointed out, I'm thinking that averaging the S/O over the last 3 days could be improved upon to reduce bounce. However, I haven't looked at the whole thing to see how it works, so maybe it's fine. > Might it be a good idea to use a different prefix to indicate rules that > the automated systems have decided don't score well, to distinguish them > from rules that the developer has explicitly indicated are for test? I'm indifferent. I'm not a fan of renaming the rules (I'd prefer tflags), however I suppose it makes it easy to tell the T_ rules apart when viewing the bare rule names without a method that could pick up on the tflags for you. Daryl
