In article <425### [at] econymdemoncouk> , Mike Williams 
<mik### [at] nospamplease>  wrote:

> When I did software testing for one of the UK high street banks we had a
> theory about software bugs. We reckoned that the rate of fixing bugs in
> a complex piece of software was approximately linear, but the rate of
> finding new bugs decreases because there should be fewer bugs to find
> (as long as the attempted bug fixes didn't introduce more new bugs as
> side effects). By observing the way the number of known outstanding bugs
> decreased over time, we considered it possible to estimate the probable
> number of unknown bugs remaining in the system.
>
> So here's the numbers of outstanding confirmed bugs from the various
> known bug lists.
>
>         Date            known bugs
>         ----            ----------
>         27 Sep          19
>         28 Sep          16
>          1 Oct          21
>         23 Oct          25
>          1 Nov          27
>         21 Nov          38
>         27 Nov          42
>          2 Dec          37
>         current         42      (list not yet published)
>
> We appear to be moving in the wrong direction.
> (That never happened at the bank.)

No, not at all.  It is just that the team isn't as fast fixing bugs as they
are reported.  However, the number of bug reports has actually decreased
when you look at the same period of time.  For example, there had been about
20 reports in the first three weeks, but only another 20 in the past six
weeks.  So effectively the rate of new bugs found has slowed down.

>         current         42      (list not yet published)

Of course, you can't be sure that all those bugs hold up to an
investigation.  Besides, some of the bugs in your list are scene/include
file only...

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message