On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Ealdwulf Wuffinga <ealdwulf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Steven Tweed <orthochronous@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It is not obvious how to perform this algorithm incrementally, because > of the need to > marginalise out the fault rate. As I understand it, marginalisation > has to be done after you > have incorporated all your information into the model, which means we > can't use the > usual bayesian updating. I had a look over the weekend, and got a bit sidetracked on one of your assumptions. You seem to be assuming that the bug is such that observing a single positive observation of the symptom at a position i in the linear history _does not_ completely rule out that the guilty commit occurs after that point. I would have thought the generally more applicable assumption is that, given that generally you don't have a bug ridden system where more than one bug causes the same symptom _within the history of interest_, that a single observation of the symptom does totally rule out the bug after that point (whilst intermittency clearly not having observed the bug before that point doesn't completely rule out the guilty commit being earlier, although it should increase the liklihood estimate of the bug being later). I wonder what your thoughts are on this? (I started formulating a model over the weekend, but work is a bit hectic so I may not get to write it up in LaTeX very quickly.) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
