| From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres code quality |
| Date: | 2012-02-25 03:32:44 |
| Message-ID: | 201202241932.45076.adrian.klaver@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Friday, February 24, 2012 4:25:42 pm Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Meh. As far as I know we still haven't configured the coverity tools so
> that they don't report spurious errors in certain safe coding idioms we
> use, so our true defect density is likely to be lower than the article
> reports.
To a certain extent the validity of test results is in the eye of the beholder:)
What I found important is that relatively speaking Postgres holds its own and
that Postgres was held up as project worthy of comparison. Pushes the project a
little more into the limelight.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | asya999 | 2012-02-26 02:29:20 | Re: Postgres code quality |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-02-25 00:25:42 | Re: Postgres code quality |