From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Tweed Subject: Re: Generalised bisection Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:29:12 +0000 Message-ID: References: <43d8ce650903110235q5e2a59f6t201d5e65a4937476@mail.gmail.com> <43d8ce650903112345x3d40b70ap7e4c0f8c7d0b6069@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johannes Schindelin , John Tapsell , Christian Couder , Git List To: Ealdwulf Wuffinga X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 16 11:30:56 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LjA5n-0006Sr-HG for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:30:47 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754109AbZCPK3R (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:29:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753911AbZCPK3R (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:29:17 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f175.google.com ([209.85.218.175]:49111 "EHLO mail-bw0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753268AbZCPK3P (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:29:15 -0400 Received: by bwz23 with SMTP id 23so885985bwz.37 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:29:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QgAN9qXAN3Hzyw5xhtTNI0FcpRhnDVm5Y/xGXdcsNw4=; b=gaIe/POeG2h8RWlr8j5uEnvvI8uTzJ0VNGM0Py9Pk1HuKIiazSOgSG5byoUv+h1w1w glwX5UnE1XbhUiumn6xiG/YUvwVgDhkbtkHKboj+qD4qU9mhK8sqgSwxJZD0e/5wIg95 bDItfk/tBb8D3slza2nR+YYBXaxtI/CsFcVck= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=wF1OzsWeFOtXExAsiLsIMsHBBliOfzcCr/KqfMwr3/NpCUBpr5J3XIPeJ4B901XLw4 LG38XN+XI3b7v0dLJWOufUuEkIOIHNlFlMpyGx9vg5c8QroAziZ0ieuEIOxqVM20CzYn NLMTQHE4nk8foYVSOVtRng+6NGPIswA1S88NY= Received: by 10.223.126.1 with SMTP id a1mr3108035fas.52.1237199352785; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:29:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Ealdwulf Wuffinga wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Steven Tweed 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.)