From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267732AbUHJVON (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:14:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267727AbUHJVON (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:14:13 -0400 Received: from mail2.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.32]:52674 "EHLO mail2.uklinux.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267707AbUHJVOA (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:14:00 -0400 From: Nick Warne To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Bug zapper? :) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:13:56 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408102213.56383.nick@linicks.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "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. Nick -- "When you're chewing on life's gristle, Don't grumble, Give a whistle..."