REGRESSION? BUGFIX?

[Matthias Andree]

David Relson <relson at osagesoftware.com> writes:

> I've looked at all the spamicity differences in the two regression tests
> that failed - t.systest and t.grftest.  The results are all
> reasonable.

OK.

> Remember how the graham algorithm has its array of 15 extrema and how
> very high values (0.99) and very low values (0.01) are equally extreme?
> I think we have more evidence that the extrema arrray just wasn't a good
> idea.

After all, the spamicity changed in the fifth digit, and I saw that one
was probably ok, but I wouldn't want to break our tests some hours
before the release.

> The biggest difference is in the message that flipped from ham to spam
> because it now has a pair of 0.99's when before it had a pair of 0.01's.
>
> I've updated the reference results in CVS and all tests now pass.

Thank you.

-- 
Matthias Andree