Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qy0-f175.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201109191100.58100.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <201109181930.59565.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CABsx9T2FBNv26E4LHmi9GVfi1HLR1wR__qGp1_gjco8rwN0L4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<201109191100.58100.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:06:07 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSKJcHRnO3eHG33rqE9kRS2uGpWAxO_xLNVSYQ_BigveQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.4.x stable branch
Precedence: list

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> The problem with the current development model is that bugfixes are done
> alongside improvements, and code changes *always* have the potential to
> introduce new bugs, no matter how careful anyone is. So to stay on top of
> bugfixes right now implies risking new bugs being introduced. What good is
> getting one bug fixed, if it comes with 20 new yet-to-be-discovered bugs?

Bug fixes also introduce bugs. Considering the fairly small number of new
features added, I'd take a bet that most of the more recently introduced
bugs were the result of fixes not features.