Re: [gnugo-devel] remaining patches

[bump]

Nando wrote:

> The motivation behind almost all the tunings I submitted
> (specially the latest one) was the performance, just because it
> seems to me that it's currently an important issue. From its
> definition only, it is impossible to tell exactly if a pattern
> is bad and/or expensive. For instance, VA44 looks like a very
> good pattern, a very logical move if the optics code missed it.
> But actually, it's success rate is under 3% and it costs about
> 10% owl nodes. I'm currently trying to find a better contraint to
> reduce this negative performance impact.

Maybe you explained this and I missed it but how do you
measure success rate?

> I think submitted owl tunings should always be documented with
> full regression results, i.e. documented breakage and performance
> impact. Maybe I missed it on the list, but I don't recall seeing
> such kind of documentation for evan_3_13.8

I think as we approach 3.4 it is very important to have
a policy like this in place. Before 3.2 as I recall we
did almost *no* owl tuning in the weeks immediately
preceeding the release though we continued to tune
patterns.db. 

Dan