[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Bug zapper? :)
"I'm suggesting things to make code auditing simpler, more accurate, more 
precise. "Quality-Assurance audited code still contains on average 5
bugs per kloc" is a really nasty thought."

I really disagree with stuff like this.

OK, I am not a contributer to kernel code - far from it - nor really any sort
of coder at all except I can read it all and try to understand.

But why does 'quality assurance' == less bugs (or whatever you try it on - and
take we know who for an e.g.)?

It doesn't. All it does is give a 'false' assurance to something that when
tested and looked at didn't find what it was searching for to look at and
find - and of course, who/whatever does the assessment needs to be 'QA'ed'
first to make sure that is correct - so what/who does that?

If the code is 'Assured clean' then should everybody accept it and carry on to
the next bit?

Quality assurance may work in the manufacturing industry (sort of), but in
abstract fluent work...

Many eyes is the only way, reading and re-reading.


"When you're chewing on life's gristle,
Don't grumble, Give a whistle..."
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.051 / U:5.996 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site