Julien Palard <julien+pyt...@palard.fr> added the comment:
I should have monitored this more closely, I started monitoring it weekly, then life got over until today when I'm even surprised to see activity on the issue, sry! (Surprise leading me to investigate why I had not received notifications from bpo, leading me to a bug in my sieve filter...) I counted, during your releases `make suspicious` spotted: - 1 true positive in 20ac34772aa9805ccbf082e700f2b033291ff5d2 - 1 false positive in 20ac34772aa9805ccbf082e700f2b033291ff5d2 - 1 true positive in 57f21db3f629649dbd7c4531078b6a2104896411 - 1 false positive in de833b601319da15d90c8f3cd3c44d239d6d5924 if I missed none, the success ratio is not good (which is already known). What I'm aiming to do in this issue is to list the true positives over time, by passing the tool manually from time to time, to try to see what kind of rule is usefull in such a tool, and ultimately try to spot those errors in a reliable way. I'd go for removing it from both release process and the CI, this would lower pressure on RMs and contributors, while easing the study of the tool in this issue. I even consider removing it from the Makefile / tools hierarchy to ensure nobody runs it, because if someone run it locally during its contribution process it may hide true positives from me (leading me to think there's no true positives and the tool is useless). ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue42238> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
