From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 24 17:15:28 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE1F16A4CE for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:15:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sandvine.com (sandvine.com [199.243.201.138]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A18E43D2D for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:15:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from don@sandvine.com) Received: by mail.sandvine.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:15:27 -0500 Message-ID: From: Don Bowman To: 'Garance A Drosihn' , Kris Kennaway , Jon Noack Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:15:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: RE: LOR status page? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:15:28 -0000 From: Garance A Drosihn [mailto:drosih@rpi.edu] > > At 3:46 PM -0800 3/24/04, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 02:03:28PM -0600, Jon Noack wrote: > > > Would it be helpful to put up a web page with all known lock > > > order reversal false positives (or better yet all known lock > > > order reversals with a status indication)? This would allow > > > people to check there before reporting, saving everyone time. > > > >Clearly we need to do something to stop people reporting the same > >non-bugs every day, the problem is that it needs to be somewhere > >people are likely to check. Maybe a pointer to your proposed > >webpage in UPDATING will help. > > Could we do something so we don't PRINT the false-positives? If > we're about to turn 5.x-current into 5.x-stable, then it is not > good to tell users "Here are a bunch of error messages that you > should just ignore". At least in my experience, what happens is > that users are much more likely to ignore *all* error messages. > > I have no idea what would need to be done, of course. I'm just > uneasy at telling users to ignore scary-looking error messages. > > I do agree that a web page saying exactly which ones to ignore > would be better than expecting end-users to figure that out by > scanning the mailing lists... How about make the first line of the error message be: "This technique sometimes produces false positives... See http://.../ for more details"