Thanks for tracking that down. > I suspect the reason Hal didn't catch this and fix it instantly is that he > is, like the rest of us, really focused on ntpd. And thus didn't think to > test ntpdig when he modified it.
Can we add some tests that would have caught this? Do we need another category of tests? I don't have a good word. I'm thinking of a script that gets run nightly/weekly and requires human review to decide if a problem is due to a recent change in the code or a quirk in the environment. > Take a lesson, everybody. It's the tests you don't run that'll hurt you. I've worked on at least one project where part of the culture was to collect test cases along with bug fixes, and merge them into the standard test collection. It's embarrassing how often bugs get reinvented. (That may be an indication of poor architecture or just a messy area.) -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
