On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 07:31:32PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Yeah, but in this case the patch that introduced the bug was one of > the last to go in before the release (it was the fix for PRs 20490 > and 20929, the patch for that went in on April 17). So it was more > an unfortunate fix than a typical .0 bug.
Again, that's not surprising. There's always a risk that a patch can create a new bug, and the regression test suite only proves we haven't re-broken old bugs. Late fixes are particularly risky, because of the limited testing they get.
