From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: n versioning is there any other better approach
Date: 22 Apr 2006 06:50:23 -0500
Date: 2006-04-22T06:50:23-05:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <oejls0QwV4F3@eisner.encompasserve.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 25f2g.111486$oL.37868@attbi_s71
In article <25f2g.111486$oL.37868@attbi_s71>, "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org> writes:
> Robert A Duff wrote:
>>
>> Multiple versions can certainly help, but it doesn't help nearly as much
>> as one would like. It sure would be nice if, given a probability P of
>> error, N versions would make it P**N. With software, it's not that
>> good, because my errors are not independent of your errors, because our
>> brains think alike to some extent.
>
> I saw a study once that indicated that multiple versions tend to have
> similar errors.
Do you recall whether there was any commonality in the versions, other
than the specification ? Like language, background of implementers,
deadline, etc. ?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-04-22 11:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-04-21 6:05 n versioning is there any other better approach Ananth the Boss
2006-04-21 13:45 ` Larry Kilgallen
2006-04-21 21:25 ` Robert A Duff
2006-04-22 0:50 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2006-04-22 11:50 ` Larry Kilgallen [this message]
2006-04-23 5:44 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2006-04-23 23:31 ` Peter Amey
2006-04-24 4:05 ` Ananth the Boss
2006-04-24 10:11 ` Ananth the Boss
2006-04-24 4:04 ` Ananth the Boss
2006-04-24 12:04 ` Simon Clubley
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox