gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <stef...@apache.org>
Subject Re: fog factor
Date Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:56:55 GMT
Stephen McConnell wrote:

> Adam Jack wrote:
> 
>>> Question for a gump newbi.
>>>
>>> As the fog clears - you would anticipate a fog factor approaching zero.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe it should, a boundary value is more comparable.
>>
>>
>>>  In the context of gump - is zero fog a good thing?  Summary - I don't
>>> understand the fog factor index - can anyone explain it or point me to
>>> relevant documentation?
>>
>>
>>
>> For today, quite the reverse. The larger the better.
>>
>> Gump does what Gump does, and some projects support that better than 
>> others.
>> FOG is an attempt to translate that into something
>> simple/comparable/tangible so folks can get a quick insight into 
>> something's
>> suitability as a Gump dependency for their project. [It doesn't today
>> directly translate to any other project 'quality' metric, but it might 
>> one
>> day.]
> 
> 
> I had a hunch that this was the case - so current-fog ~= clarity and as 
> such real fog may perhaps be better defined as
> 
>    real-fog = 1/(current-fog)
> 
> If that's is a correct (reasonable) assumption - is this something I 
> should post to JIRA?

FoG stands for Friend of Gump, not for "fog" as in the white stuff 
suspended in the air that doesn't allow you to see thru.

Adam, I think we should get rid of FoG entirely until we have a better 
solution. It is causing more harm than good.

-- 
Stefano.


Mime
View raw message