On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 11:34 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> ...
> > Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> ...
> > A lack of bugs usually indicates there are no bugs in the areas being
> > tested.
>
> Would the real Simon Riggs please speak up?
LOL, its me, flaws included.
> Isn't that precisely what
> "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is meant to refute?
You snipped out the part where I give other possible explanations also,
so the two statements above do not counterpoise each other of themselves
in my original text. I stand by my whole statement, as intended.
Now, I think I misread Tom's comments. I agree with Tom that the new bug
discovery rate has fallen to zero and that probably indicates that no
new/ground-breaking tests are taking place.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
