At 08:23 AM 1999/06/05 MDT, Paul Derbyshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Peter Doherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is normal. Because of the bug in v17, all the math it was doing
>> was wrong, so using that 77% would have been a waste since it was
>> incorrect data. There is no need to try and retrieve that data. It's
>> useless.
>
>Are you sure of that? What if the bug didn't happen to strike my run, or the
>errors could be corrected?
>
>If what you say is true, then whoever designed version 17 acted in a
>completely unconscionably rash manner by releasing it without thoroughly
>testing it for problems as serious as that. And has therefore shot the whole
>GIMPS effort in the foot by setting it back many weeks.
>
As I recall, there were times when new versions of primenet or prime95 were
needed by a certain date to prevent exhaustion of all exponents below the
usable limit.
Remember that all code development is by volunteers, primarily George
Woltman for prime95, and Scott Kurowski for primenet.
I do not have you on my list of QA testers or code reviewers.
Would you like to participate in helping V19 meet the code quality
you desire in this free software?
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
