-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Parker writes: > John Myers wrote: > > The rule promotion criteria don't appear to be doing the right thing > > with the DATE_IN_* tests. > > > > These tests are essentially a group. Once one of them has been paid > > for, the rest have negligible incremental cost. > > > > DATE_IN_FUTURE_48_96 is disabled due to lack of hits, but the tests on > > either side of it are enabled. Most of the DATE_IN_PAST_ tests are > > disabled due to S/O ratios below the cutoff. > > > > I believe all of these tests should be active. I'm not sure how to > > generalize this observation to other sets of eval tests. > > Maybe we should put rules into groups or buckets and the rule promotion > code would add all rules in that group/bucket when any of them are selected. Hold on, though. If the S/O ratios are too poor to qualify, why bother keeping them, even if they *do* have negligible cost? They still have a cost, even if it is small; the overhead of calling an eval rule, and tracking scores/descriptions/etc. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFDutxoMJF5cimLx9ARAulDAJ9qUWf7WD2QSAuSoemyYYBJIyPpfgCgp4Ao xa1Hl5hvCX41sZZSkS2axCk= =AaFd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
