On 10/03/2019 15:07, Wietse Venema wrote: > You are looking from the "we made improvements" angle. I am looking > from the "with hard work, we introduce 1 bug in 1000 lines of new > code" angle. > > In the TLS library there were 1039 additions and 559 deletions from > Postfix 3.3.3 to 3.4.1 (diff -bur --new-file for 'c' and 'h' files > only, excluding proxy-related code). That count does not distinguish > between low-impact changes that affect only nearby code, and > high-impact changes that affect multiple lines, such as global ifdefs. > > The changes among those 1600 lines that 'broke' intended functionality > are 'easy' to weed out - just wait for people to to report breakages. > Such a reactive approach might be acceptable in some projects. > > I am concerned about the changes among those 1600 lines that did > NOT break intended behavior, but that introduced some other problem. > > What is the basis for confidence that no such problems have been > introduced, if we obviously missed multiple things that could have > been found with simple tests?
I have no say in the development of Postfix, however I believe another interesting question that should be asked is: what is going to make you more confident in the releasing those changes later this year with Postfix 3.5? Are there circumstances for which more testing and code auditing will happen if the code is not released? Cheers, Dan
