On Tuesday 26 July 2005 03:07, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2005, at 3:45 PM, Neil Conway wrote:
> > This news article:
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.363
> >
> > claims that "PostgreSQL Software Quality trounces MySQL". Can
> > someone restate this to be a bit less unequivocal, please? (Or if
> > you'd prefer that I just submit a new writeup, let me know.)
> >
> > The notion that you can compare overall software quality by
> > counting the number of bugs found by a particular static analysis
> > tool is pretty ridiculous. I don't think it is wise to make that
> > sort of dubious claim on the website, particularly when combined
> > with a direct reference to a competing database system.
>
> I think just rewriting the headline and removing the final paragraph
> would be enough. While adding the information about MySQL's Coverity
> results is useful as a comparison, the point of the article is that
> PostgreSQL is now qualified to sport the "Coverity Inspected" badge.
> There's no need to fan the flames, especially on the PostgreSQL site
> itself.
>
> Perhaps "PostgreSQL achieves Coverity quality certification"?
>
Updated headline, fixed a few typos, removed the last paragraph, and added a
link back to the full press release.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
