On 5 Feb 2004, at 02:17, Adam Jack wrote:
I've long wished that Gump could nag the 'cause' of a problem, not the 'effect', but it is (AFAICT) pretty much impossible to guess who is cause from a compile failure.
Tell you what: there have been looooong discussing about this and endless hours that I spent on the whiteboard trying to figure out *where* that data can emerge out of the entire mass of data that gump is either collecting or generating.
I was still not able to find it, still not able to come up with a general algorithm that would, at least, if not identify the cause, at least discriminate between "causing trends" and "effected trends".
I think the key is that the gump runs as for Gump or Gumpy do *not* contain enough information. But if we had both:
1) the latest dependency run 2) the stable dependency run
and we had enough history of these (say a few months), I'm pretty sure the data *IS* there.
Somewhere :-)
I'm diving deeper and deeper into graph theory these days, and my gut tells me that's where the solution resides.
Since analyzing extremely complex graphs for trends is now my day job (and will be at least for the next few years), I'll be happy to apply my discoveries to Gump as well, both to understand a reasonable metric for FoG and to do a much more high quality nagging.
But, for that, we need to have both the latest and the stable dependency runs.... so we should start thinking on how to achieve that first.
--Stefano.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
