On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 23:54 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting "Roberto C. Sánchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > What professional software engineering experience do you have on large > > software projects that qualifies you to determine what software "is > > likely to need little testing"? > Good point. The answer is not much, > > > Additionally, what insight do you have into the Opera development > > process and methodology that qualifies you to make that claim > > specifically about Opera? > > Opera bugs are reported much less than most other widely used > browsers, and Opera is widely used. > What evidence do you have that your process and methodology is an > improvement over Opera's?
Feh, turning this into a pissing competition is unneeded. Bug rates on Opera *may* be lower than those on firefox/internet explorer/safari etc. But that does help establish your point - that opera is something that needs little testing unless *those other browsers* have already been established as having bug rates below whatever threshold is considered relevant. Not that bug rates are a good indication of whether a new build of a piece of software *needs testing*. Having few reported bugs may simply be an indication that that software is heavily tested before releases :). -Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
