Re: GSoC status: classification, output format and more
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 09:13:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The plus is that the basic format uses the same terms that people are
> already familiar with, even though we also have support for tuning the
> output for things like ftp-master. The drawback is that we're not pushing
> people towards the new, granular way of thinking about tag severity. But
> I'm not sure that's necessary.
Oh, I thought the idea was to change E/W/I too. I'm OK with it, but I
still think alternative outputs could be interesting. And while I agree
there is no easy way to represent the new information on the command
line interface, I'm sure we can find more subtle ways to display it on
lintian.d.o.
Btw, I didn't say much about Source:, but that's because I was thinking
of reusing Ref: which already has the relevant information. Though some
standardization wouldn't hurt: using the document ID as defined by
doc-base instead of its title (and optional debian- prefixes?), removing
the word "section", and making it a comma separated list. So instead of:
Ref: policy 3.9.1
Ref: menu manual 3.7
Ref: Perl policy 4.4.2
Ref: Debian doc-base Manual sections 2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.2
Ref: debconf-devel(7)
the standardized entries would be:
Ref: policy 3.9.1
Ref: menu 3.7
Ref: perl-policy 4.4.2
Ref: doc-base 2.3.2.1, doc-base 2.3.2.2
Ref: debconf-devel(7)
> The only thing that I might change there is to make N/W an I instead of W.
> Otherwise, that looks great to me.
Makes sense, I have changed it already. I also updated the script to get
some numbers[1], and with all the tags that have been classified so far
(~62%), the "accuracy" of this mapping is ~95%.
1. http://ettin.org/tmp/lintian/transtats.out
Reply to: