From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: buildbots (was: eshell-defgroup. Do we really need this?) Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 05:25:56 +0900 Message-ID: <87ej53fbu3.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <20080729222754.GC2208@muc.de> <86myjx3lt8.fsf@lifelogs.com> <48921019.6030308@gmail.com> <8663qk3g0w.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87y73giryj.fsf@elegiac.orebokech.com> <86iquk1nsk.fsf@lifelogs.com> <878wvgm4mw.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <86zlnszql2.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87sykiguzc.fsf__45993.8457854607$1217872198$gmane$org@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <86vdygzku5.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87vdyfg9fz.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <86wsivy37r.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1217968019 9292 80.91.229.12 (5 Aug 2008 20:26:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 20:26:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ted Zlatanov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 05 22:27:50 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KQT8E-000128-6p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:27:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49697 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KQT7I-0002ox-OO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:26:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KQT6r-0002Yj-FY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:26:21 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KQT6q-0002Xo-ES for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:26:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53081 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KQT6q-0002XZ-3q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:26:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:39461) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KQT6p-0000k0-Ky for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:26:19 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mtps02.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9DB47FFA; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 05:26:14 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 777AF1A25C3; Wed, 6 Aug 2008 05:25:56 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <86wsivy37r.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> X-Mailer: VM ?bug? under XEmacs 21.5.21 (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:102102 Archived-At: Ted Zlatanov writes: > My point is simple: redundant testing reduces the chance of false > positives. How is anticipating a system failure an argument for never > testing? I can't follow your reasoning, sorry. Redundant testing also increases the chance of false negatives; those opposed effects go hand in hand. I see no reason to suppose that false positives are more harmful than false negatives at this stage, quite the reverse, that's all.