From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,78a1af350f4cf4b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: Win2000 has 63,000 'defects' Date: 2000/02/21 Message-ID: <2000Feb21.071938.1@eisner>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 587913829 References: <38A989B7.2D4D6B56@maths.unine.ch> <2000Feb15.143333.1@eisner> <2000Feb15.155800.1@eisner> <150220001931201946%emery@grebyn.com> <88hbpp$j4i$1@news.btv.ibm.com> <88ma3c$p6a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Trace: news.decus.org 951135582 14631 KILGALLEN [216.44.122.34] Organization: LJK Software Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <88ma3c$p6a$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joe Wisniewski writes: > Also consider ..." > Categorization of the "defects". If the 63K defects are > accurate and account for EVERY possible "fix" that may or may > not be a "defect" or even necessary such as a separate defect for > every typo in the help file, ..., 63K may not be that big a deal, > especially if that number includes enhancements, which are often > included in normal defect tracking, just categorized differently. > > In fact one _could_ make the argument that this is a real step up > wrt turning Windows releases into a real software engineering > effort. That is, identify every possible thing wrong that has > shown up in beta, not matter how trivial it may seem right now. Ignoring the previous discussion in this topic of how the 63,000 came about, I doubt the ability of anyone to totally enumerate the defects in a body of code this large. This cannot be a total exact count. If one considers the possibility it is an _estimate_, based on typical industry figures, the very thought of only 1.5 defects per KLOC is out of the question. Some people I know use 5 defects per KLOC for code that has been revised and 10 defects per KLOC for "new" code. Reports indicate that Windows 2000 has a lot of new code. Thus, based only on the defect count and the 40 million LOC count, this can only be a partial number, which gives credibility to the press report that the 63,000 count was the result of one particular source scanner which may very well have included a goodly number of false positives. But certainly such a tool is incapable of "finding all defects". If Microsoft had a scanner that was able to "find all defects", they could drop the Windows and Office products (or let the court give it away) and make more money by renting out their defect scanner. Of course before signing up to rent the scanner, some potential customers might want to see proof in terms of one program that had been scanned and revised repeatedly until no defects remained. To date Microsoft has not offered such a program for sale, so they presumably are taking the same approach as those who hide their use of Ada as a "strategic advantage" :-)