Thread: recent news item
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.
-Neil
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Neil Conway > Sent: 26 July 2005 07:46 > To: pgsql-www@postgresql.org > Subject: [pgsql-www] recent news item > > 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.) If you've got 5 minutes, then please do so. Regards,Dave
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"? Michael Glaesemann grzm myrealbox com
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
Robert Treat wrote: > Updated headline, fixed a few typos, removed the last paragraph, and > added a link back to the full press release. Thanks, Robert -- the revised text looks fine. -Neil