On 14 May 2013 08:36, Ulrich Stärk <u...@apache.org> wrote: > ack. That's what I meant. > > Uli >
I agree the conclusion is more journalism than actual value. It could be fun, however to get our total code base tested like that. Seen in that perspective ASF is one big "family" of projects, so it would be fair to look at our code as a "ASF product". If we did it (or got it done) correctly, that could give us (ASF) an article or two. Putting focus on how big we really are. I bet we would show up as quality software, of course some parts better than others. rgds jan I. > > On 14.05.2013 08:34, Ted Dunning wrote: > > I would weaken that statement a little bit. > > > > The numbers are fine. The *conclusions* are bullshit. > > > > As an example, there were 13 systems total over a million lines of code. > Yet the authors drew grand > > conclusions. The number 13 isn't bullshit. It just isn't large enough > to draw really strong > > conclusions. > > > > > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Ulrich Stärk <u...@apache.org <mailto: > u...@apache.org>> wrote: > > > > Much more interesting is the statistical analysis in the comments > (which is missing from the main > > article) that concludes: these numbers are bullshit. > > > > Uli > > > > On 13.05.2013 21:24, janI wrote: > > > http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/coverity-report/ > > > > > > > >
