REGRESSION? BUGFIX?

[David Relson]

At 09:09 AM 3/4/03, Matthias Andree wrote:

>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.

I've gotten over being surprised how an innocuous change like changing 
0.01f to 0.01 effects the regression tests.

As you say, it's not ideal having to update the reference results at the 
11th hour.  I don't think any harm has been done.

> > 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.

De nada.