| 1 |
On Thursday 26 January 2006 22:09, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> There is no way that I can see around this without highly increasing the |
| 3 |
> possibility of false positives. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I extracted a list of cps from repoman, modified your script to check all cpvs |
| 6 |
(rather than only the best) and compared that with repoman's cps. The |
| 7 |
attached result.diff file prefixes repoman-only detection with a "-" and the |
| 8 |
separate tool-only detection with a "+". |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Your fixes to seem to producee many false positives and introduce some false |
| 11 |
negatives as well. There may be true positives that I'm missing but I |
| 12 |
couldn't find one picking a few cases at random. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Either way, it doesn't matter if there a few false negatives as it's only |
| 15 |
meant to be an aid. False positives on the other hand are unacceptable. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Jason Stubbs |
Archives