While I don't disagree that we should have conservative default settings, this is one of those cases where I want to poke at people a bit to use our test tools before submitting patches.
With this patch applied, unsurprisingly all the VPM-B plan tests now fail. That's what those tests are supposed to track. So I'm not opposed to this patch. But it needs a companion patch that updates the tests, please. /D On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 07:18:33PM +1000, Rick Walsh wrote: > Nominal (aka 0) conservatism for VPM-B is generally considered aggressive. We > don't want to be aggressive, especially as some users might assume the default > is the correct value. Our default Buhlmann gradient factors are 30/75. The > most similar VPM-B conservatism level is probably +3, at least for dives in > the > 40-50 metre, 50-70 minute range. > > Signed-off-by: Rick Walsh <[email protected]> > --- > subsurfacestartup.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/subsurfacestartup.c b/subsurfacestartup.c > index 18d00d3..fd5df09 100644 > --- a/subsurfacestartup.c > +++ b/subsurfacestartup.c > @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ struct preferences default_prefs = { > .category = { 0 } > }, > .deco_mode = BUEHLMANN, > - .conservatism_level = 0 > + .conservatism_level = 3 > }; > > int run_survey; > -- > 2.4.3 > > _______________________________________________ > subsurface mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
