gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Chalko <n...@chalko.com>
Subject Re: FOG 2.0 Proposal
Date Thu, 01 Apr 2004 16:30:57 GMT
Adam R. B. Jack wrote:

>Ok, so FOG as successes/(failures+prereqs) hasn't been a huge hit w/ folks,
>but what about:
>
>    successes/(successes+failures+prereqs).
>
>This is really (if my math memory is ok) 'odds of a successful build, based
>off history' -- I think. This is far more valuable as a FOG Factor, because
>it is something bounded (0 to 1) and something we can do math with.
>
>I think 'likelihood of success' is good to know, but also if you combine it
>with 'likelihood of dependent success' (a multiplication of all direct
>dependencies) one gets a comparison of how precariously something sits on
>it's stack, and how much it contributes to success or failure.
>
>  
>
+1

>I feel there is good information in there. We ought know (mathematically)
>that Forrest or Maven don't have a snowballs chance in heck of building, and
>it isn't their doing. We ought know what odds we are facing at a certain
>depth.
>
>  
>
It will be nice to have number to show this,
 so we consider alternatives to our current first fail pattern.

R,
Nick

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org


Mime
View raw message