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
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/
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
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/coverity-report/
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:24 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote:
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/coverity-report/
I'm not really confident that the numbers are bias-free. For example,
when you look at open source projects, of any size, you are looking at
a mix of projects that are
