stability

[Clay Smith]

Walter Bright wrote:
> John Reimer wrote:
>> In the case of gcc, the other way to look at the bug count (4265) is 
>> to realize that the number is the combined sum of four front ends (C, 
>> C++, Objective C, GNAT) and two processor IS targets (32 bit and 64 
>> bit).  At least that is what I gathered from the link. So I think it's 
>> just a little unfair to compare dmd's bug count directly to gcc's, 
>> although I understand the point you were trying to make. :)
> 
> Bug count is an uninformative measure of quality anyway. For example, if 
> feature A is not implemented, that's a bug. But if A is implemented, yet 
> has a couple obscure problems with it, one bug has been replaced by two. 
> Does that mean the quality has gone down?
> 
> As soon as someone starts using the bug count as a measure of quality, 
> people start "working" the bug count, and several things start happening:
> 
> 1) people avoid putting bugs into the database
> 2) people argue about whether bug 114 is really one bug or 3 separate bugs
> 3) people argue about whether bug 543 is a bug or an enhancement
> 4) people will log a bunch of trivial bugs, then immediately 'fix' them, 
> so they look like they're doing impressive work
> 5) people won't work on the hard bugs, because no matter how much time 
> it takes to fix it, it will only count as "1" fix, and the other guy who 
> fixed 3 typos gets credit for "3" fixes.
> 
> All of this is counterproductive. I've seen it happen in one company 
> that put a giant paper graph on the wall with the bug count logged 
> daily. The fights got progressively more acrimonious to the point where 
> management finally wised up and stopped grading programmers on the bug 
> count before total meltdown ensued.
> 
> I had another experience where I once published the outstanding bug list 
> on the C++ compiler as a service to the users of it. One lazy journalist 
> then did a comparative compiler review, and his review of my compiler 
> consisted of little more than a cut&paste of the bug list. I never did 
> that again.
> 
> These sorts of things is what made me very reluctant to use bugzilla for 
> D. Fortunately, these days people seem to have moved past naive bug counts.

Bug count is probably more a measure of product maturity. :)