home
products
contribute
download
documentation
forum
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
All posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
MediaPortal 1
MediaPortal 1 Talk
Stability Release
Contact us
RSS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gds" data-source="post: 20310" data-attributes="member: 10435"><p>Well, in an ideal world you'd be totally right. But software is never really error-free, so it's just a matter of defining metrics to say what works (and to what extent it works) and what doesn't work. To make myself clearer, think about Microsoft releasing Windows XP: when they released it, it wasn't certainly bug-free (a couple of Service Packs and some more updates prove I'm not wrong <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /> ...) but they let it out of the beta stage when most of the show-stopper bugs were solved for most of the possible HW configurations. It was not perfect but under most conditions it worked. If they had waited for the "perfect" XP to let it come out, it would never come out...</p><p>I think it would help the developers to know what always works, what works most of the time and what doesn't work at all for most of the users, so that they can prioritize bug-hunting, working first and foremost to solve show-stopper bugs and leave the least annoying one waiting for their spare time.</p><p>And, by they way, I agree that having non binary test results can lead the test results to be conditioned by human judgement, but here comes statistics to help us figure the real priorities.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gds, post: 20310, member: 10435"] Well, in an ideal world you'd be totally right. But software is never really error-free, so it's just a matter of defining metrics to say what works (and to what extent it works) and what doesn't work. To make myself clearer, think about Microsoft releasing Windows XP: when they released it, it wasn't certainly bug-free (a couple of Service Packs and some more updates prove I'm not wrong :D ...) but they let it out of the beta stage when most of the show-stopper bugs were solved for most of the possible HW configurations. It was not perfect but under most conditions it worked. If they had waited for the "perfect" XP to let it come out, it would never come out... I think it would help the developers to know what always works, what works most of the time and what doesn't work at all for most of the users, so that they can prioritize bug-hunting, working first and foremost to solve show-stopper bugs and leave the least annoying one waiting for their spare time. And, by they way, I agree that having non binary test results can lead the test results to be conditioned by human judgement, but here comes statistics to help us figure the real priorities. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
MediaPortal 1
MediaPortal 1 Talk
Stability Release
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom