Folks:
It looks like we didn't get another successful weekly masscheck again,
even though if you check the counts today they are above the thresholds.
I suspect this is happening due to some results being submitted "late".
I think we might want to look into making a change to the masscheck timing
rules, specifically: the cutoff for having enough corpora to run the
scoring and produce a rules update is not a specific time, but is instead
related to the following masscheck run.
In other words:
There is still a cutoff time for the masscheck run, but it only means "the
scoring won't start prior to this time."
If the corpora are above the thresholds when this time is reached, the
scoring and update process commences immediately.
If not, that doesn't mean we've missed an update, at least not yet.
If another result set comes in for that pass, and that result set pushes
it over the thresholds, then we can start the scoring and rule generation
process.
The actual hard cutoff for pass X would be sometime after pass X+1 starts.
Perhaps if the cutoff time for pass X+1 is reached and pass X is still
waiting, then we give up on pass X.
This way, a late result set that satisfies the threshholds will just delay
the rule generation, not prevent it.
This can use some refinement:
If we've started scoring and another result set for that pass comes in, do
we incorporate that into the score generation? We probably should; the
decision could be based on when the delayed results come in (we don't want
to keep resetting the scoring process and collide with the following pass)
and how large the new results are (we might want to ignore a late small
result set, but incorporate a late large result set).
If we do that, does the scoring process need to restart from the
beginning? Or can we just do something like add N more passes onto the
genetic scorer?
If we're still running a score generation for pass X and pass X+1 has
reached its cutoff and has enough corpora to satisfy the thresholds and
immediately start the scoring process, do we give up on processing pass X?
I would think yes.
If we're still scoring pass X and pass X+1 was delayed but now has enough
corpora and wants to start its scoring pass, do we give up on processing
pass X? Probably yes, but this might still result in a long series of
missed rules if the timing is just wrong.
Granted this does introduce some inter-pass coordination that's not
currently there - pass X will need to know whether pass X+1 has started
processing, or pass X+1 will need to have a way to tell pass X to stop
processing because it wants to start.
Comments solicited.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[email protected] FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [email protected]
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The promise of nuclear power: electricity too cheap to meter
The reality of nuclear power: FUD too cheap to meter
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 days until the 281st anniversary of John Peter Zenger's acquittal
