Hi Axel,
> With removing the Certainty you basically removed the possibility to
> write Lintian checks which are known to not be or in some cases even
> never can be 100% perfect.
I don't see how the removal of Certainty requires checks to be
100% perfect. There is no change of thought here,
Hi Axel,
[Thanks for the cc. I am on the list.]
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 4:57 PM Axel Beckert wrote:
>
> JFTR: I strongly disagree. The Certainty was a very helpful decision
> helper for Lintian users who had a gut feeling about a lintian-emitted
> tag being a false positive by seeing how
Hi again,
taking Felix Lechner into Cc.
Axel Beckert wrote:
> to my dismay I discovered that Lintian's Certainty feature has been
> removed.
In addition to that I find it very bold to not even mention that
removal explicitly in the debian/changelog entry:
* Use the "Severity" field in tags
Hi,
to my dismay I discovered that Lintian's Certainty feature has been
removed.
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Controversial opinion
Indeed controversial.
> the "certainty" of tags is of no actionable benefit to either the
> users of Lintian or its developers and should be removed.
JFTR: I strongly
Hi Felix,
> > I would very much suggest we repurpose "severity" here instead of
> > inventing a new term.
>
> That is exactly what I thought you might think (and it is why I
> prepared a merge request instead of committing directly).
>
> Just one thought, please: Do you think the term severity
[cc'ing the bug this time]
Hi Chris,
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 4:58 PM Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> I would very much
> suggest we repurpose "severity" here instead of inventing a new term.
That is exactly what I thought you might think (and it is why I
prepared a merge request instead of committing
Hi Felix,
> > it appears to simply encode the currently unhelpful distinction between
> > "wild-guess", "possible" and "certain" in a new and relatively unfamiliar
> > way with a slightly ambiguous name.
>
> I think this is a case of miscommunication.
[…]
> Any references to certainty or its
Hi Chris,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:58 AM Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> it appears to
> simply encode the currently unhelpful distinction between "wild-guess",
> "possible" and "certain" in a new and relatively unfamiliar way with
> a slightly ambiguous name.
I think this is a case of
Felix Lechner wrote:
> our %CODES = (
> classification => { 'wild-guess' => 'C', possible => 'C', certain => 'C'
> },
> pedantic => { 'wild-guess' => 'P', possible => 'P', certain => 'P' },
> wishlist => { 'wild-guess' => 'I', possible => 'I', certain => 'I' },
> minor => {
Hi Chris,
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 2:06 PM Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> As I understand it, you are proposing two interrelated changes here:
I can see why you might think that, but it is not how I would phrase it.
> a) Renaming the existing concept of severity (eg. error/warning/
> pedantic,
Felix Lechner wrote:
> > Therefore I don't understand how introducing any new subjective tag,
> > whatever its name, is the way forward here.
>
> The new field is not subjective. The alert level is not part of the
> tag declarations. The new field, called Visibility, now determines the
> alert
Hi Chris,
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:57 PM Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> Therefore I don't understand how introducing any new subjective tag,
> whatever its name, is the way forward here.
The new field is not subjective. The alert level is not part of the
tag declarations. The new field, called
"Chris Lamb" writes:
> Controversial opinion — the "certainty" of tags is of no actionable
> benefit to either the users of Lintian or its developers and should be
> removed.
I may be able to provide a bit of historical context here, since I was
maintaining Lintian when this was introduced.
Hi Felix,
> > Controversial opinion — the "certainty" of tags is of no actionable
> > benefit to either the users of Lintian or its developers and should
> > be removed.
>
> Actually, I agree one hundred percent. I will introduce a new
> field---probably called Relevance, Urgency, Significance,
Hi Chris,
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 6:00 PM Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> Controversial opinion — the "certainty" of tags is of no actionable
> benefit to either the users of Lintian or its developers and should
> be removed.
Actually, I agree one hundred percent. I will introduce a new
field---probably
Hi,
> lintian: Make tag certainty a programmatic assessment
Controversial opinion — the "certainty" of tags is of no actionable
benefit to either the users of Lintian or its developers and should
be removed.
If a tag is emitted by Lintian, this leads to one of four actions:
a) fixing the
Package: lintian
Hi,
A tag's certainty is currently fixed but actually depends on the
programmatic circumstances of its issuance. Some heuristics are better
than others. The 'tag' command should offer alternatives, which then
result in different alert levels (error, warning, info, and so on).
17 matches
Mail list logo
