From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Vilain Subject: Re: Worrisome bug trend Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:25:55 +1300 Message-ID: <45E493D3.7060407@vilain.net> References: <7vodnfg4sy.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 27 21:29:00 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HM8wW-0002cJ-HX for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:29:00 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751831AbXB0U0m (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:26:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751829AbXB0U0m (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:26:42 -0500 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:55881 "EHLO magnus.utsl.gen.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752546AbXB0U01 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Feb 2007 15:26:27 -0500 Received: by magnus.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 8248A13A384; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:26:23 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (unknown [203.110.28.85]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by magnus.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA5E513A342; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:26:12 +1300 (NZDT) User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060615) In-Reply-To: <7vodnfg4sy.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on mail.magnus.utsl.gen.nz X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > I take that as a sign that git hasn't been exercised well and > yet more ancient bugs are sleeping, waiting to be triggered, not > as a sign that we are very careful and adding only small number > of risky new code in the releases. > No! It's a sign that there aren't enough tests :) Maybe investigate the coverage of the test suite? Sam.