Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

2
  • 2
    Every scientific publication about bug counts contains detailed descriptions about how the number of defects was actually estimated - and on a topic as hairy as this you should only believe primary sources, never secondary ones. Commented May 8, 2016 at 20:44
  • 2
    @kilianfoth a primary source is only telling you what they did. Not what other people think of what they did. Well cited secondary sources can provide valuable citisim and comparison of methods. Commented May 8, 2016 at 21:05