Chander Ganesan wrote:
> Wow. Looks like even if we look at just the sequence value, over the
> course of a year, the number of "bugs" (many of which might be
> documentation related, or "not a bug" bugs) submitted via the form is
> less than the number that MySQL gets in two months.
The bottom line is, PostgreSQL doesn't really have a lot of known, open
bugs. Sure there are things don't work ideally, even some cases of
"don't do this", but they should all be documented. Bugs that do come
up are usually fixed within a couple of days and pushed out as a new
release within a couple of months. If you compare this to the sort of
bugs in, say, the Linux kernel and perhaps MySQL, where you have a lot
of cases of incorrect and unexplained behavior lying open forever, that
doesn't happen a lot for PostgreSQL.
Then again, you have to be fair in counting the bugs. MySQL releases
are released with regular version numbers a long time before they are
labeled "GA", but people still report bugs against those. If we
assigned a bug number to every report of an intermediate problem in a
development release, we would surely see much higher numbers as well.
So a fairer metric might be comparing how many bugs have been reported
in MySQL 5.0 and PostgreSQL 8.3 between general release and now and what
the turnaround is on those.
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Erik||Date: 2008-10-05 16:21:25|
|Subject: proposal: a new mailing list for biomedical postgresql ( pgsql-bio
|Previous:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2008-10-03 00:33:00|
|Subject: Re: Finding some bug statistics..|