jf barraud wrote:
Hi, Thanks, now I understand the meaning of "new" and what are "fail references" made for! I'm not involved in software develeopement nor CS in the large, and to tell you the truth, this was really unclear to me. This should be explained somewhere online (maybe it is already and I missed it), or made clear from reading the results themselves.
Perhaps a simple legend? (Can't think why I didn't include one in the first place.)
So I support Johan suggestion; what about replacing "new" by "fail", and "fail" by "fail (known)", with a little caption explaining that known failures are those matching a "fail reference"?
As such I think it migh be a bit misleading, but Johan does have some ideas to perhaps reduce the number of new results, so who knows.
And if the term "new" is misleading, perhaps something else, like "unknown" might be better?
BTW, the project I was feverishly working on over the past few months (http://2009.igem.org/Team:Groningen) is finally (almost) over! So I might actually be contributing to Inkscape (for example to the test suite) again in the near future. (A lot of the graphics on our Wiki were made with Inkscape btw.)