Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!ads.com!saturn!jgautier
From: jgautier@vangogh.ads.com (Jorge Gautier)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: bridge building and discipline
Message-ID: <JGAUTIER.91May17103615@vangogh.ads.com>
Date: 17 May 91 17:36:15 GMT
References: <1991May9.053311.800@netcom.COM>
	<4563.282e83ea@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
	<JGAUTIER.91May13125016@vangogh.ads.com>
	<1991May14.150350.2837@den.mmc.com>
	<1991May17.064623.23670@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM>
Sender: usenet@ads.com (USENET News)
Distribution: na
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mountain View, CA 94043, +1 (415)
	960-7300
Lines: 8
In-Reply-To: rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM's message of 17 May 91 06:46:23 GMT

In article <1991May17.064623.23670@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM> rbe@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (Robert Bernecky) writes:
<deleted>

If you had seen my earlier postings, you would know that I do not
object to useful measurements of code such as branch coverage.  I do
object to metrics that are invalid for their intended purpose,
unreliable and full of unrealistic assumptions.  Why do people think
that if one metric is useful, all metrics must be?