1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1R5fQF-00014b-0f
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:06:15 +0000
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;
Received: from mail-qy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.216.175])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1R5fQE-0001gE-30
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:06:14 +0000
Received: by qyk10 with SMTP id 10so2615536qyk.13
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.212.17 with SMTP id gq17mr2120852qcb.109.1316444768131;
Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.49.12 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
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
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1R5fQE-0001gE-30
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.4.x stable branch
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:06:15 -0000
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.
|
