Meaningless. You made an explicit statement that you thought all code bases with more than 10 k lines have "questionable design", using a piddly little rails app as an example.
When someone pointed out that linux kernel had millions of lines now you are retreating to "but it is modular". Programming languages have had modules since the eighties. If someone points out a 25,000 line module what will you say? Each function has less than 10 k lines?
The point is that there are well designed code bases (the design includes modularization) with sizes well above 10 k lines , which directly contradicts your point. I've worked on well designed enterprise systems with a few million lines of code.
You've flipped my statement which changes its meaning. I said I'd question the design of any code base that large. Some would pass that questioning. I did not say that all large code bases have questionable design.
I won't debate a strawman anymore so I'll move on. Btw, are device drivers counted in that millions of lines of code? If so those are very independent things.
This thread was about test coverage, how many of those millions of lines of kernel code are covered by a unit test?
EDIT: so you agree with my original assertions that large test suites may not be worth the cost?
"how many of those millions of lines of kernel code are covered by a unit test?
"
Not many. And yet the kernel is an awesome piece of code. That was the point. I don't have the time to debate test-driven/test-coverage fanatics either.
When someone pointed out that linux kernel had millions of lines now you are retreating to "but it is modular". Programming languages have had modules since the eighties. If someone points out a 25,000 line module what will you say? Each function has less than 10 k lines?
The point is that there are well designed code bases (the design includes modularization) with sizes well above 10 k lines , which directly contradicts your point. I've worked on well designed enterprise systems with a few million lines of code.