bogus bogotuning

[Jason A. Smith]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 16:22, Stefan Bellon wrote:
> I'm not sure whether you really understood it. You expect others to
> spend their time implementing something that you want to use but nobody
> else needs. It does not work this way.

No, I just don't see a point in wasting time to do a patch if it will
never be accepted.  I doubt I would be the only one to use it, I'm sure
others would try it, even if it produces useless output, it would still
be educational to experiment.  I'm sure it would produce equally valid
results with only 1800 instead of 2000 for example.

> I for myself wrote some patches to Bogofilter. Some have been included
> into the mainstream code and some have not. I have a patch here, so
> that each time a new version is released I have to apply my changes.
> I'd be happy if my patch made it into mainstream, but it's not that
> much of a trouble either.
> 
> So, where exactly is your excuse that you don't try it?

As someone pointed out, it is a trivial change to the sources. 
Computers are supposed to make your life easier, right?  How much time
would I waste every time I download a new version of bogofilter, to
patch the sources and recompile, and all for a trivial change that would
produce no negative effects at all?  Why couldn't this trivial change be
included?  Someone tell me what the negative repercussions are?

Instead of exiting, just print a big warning that any results that
bogotune will produce might not be very accurate and the user should try
again with a bigger corpus.  Whats the big deal?  Why such stubborn
resistance?

~Jason