From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 24 17:01:40 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 9EF9F16A4CE for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:01:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp1.server.rpi.edu (smtp1.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5516843D46 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:01:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp1.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2P11cHB011285; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:01:39 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040324234650.GA57375@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <4061E990.4000703@alumni.rice.edu> <20040324234650.GA57375@xor.obsecurity.org> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:01:37 -0500 To: Kris Kennaway , Jon Noack From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) 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 01:01:40 -0000 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... -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu