gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Nagging the cause vs. Nagging the effect [was Re: Build of xml-batik on gump]
Date Thu, 05 Feb 2004 13:29:52 GMT

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 

> --

View raw message