Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!sdrc!thor!scjones
From: scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: The INfamous inode bug
Message-ID: <114@thor.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jan 91 00:33:55 GMT
References: <5685@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> <53@esacs.UUCP> <1991Jan12.025119.27665@nuchat.sccsi.com>
Organization: SDRC, Cincinnati
Lines: 19

In article <1991Jan12.025119.27665@nuchat.sccsi.com>, steve@nuchat.sccsi.com (Steve Nuchia) writes:
> In article <1991Jan10.161022.3360@ism.isc.com> support@bomber.ism.isc.com (Support Account) writes:
> >Code was added/fixed in V2.2 of Interactive Unix which resolved
> >all the instances of the inode problem Interactive could test
> >internally. Recently, another situation which generates the bug
> >was discovered, which was not tested for, and which is being fixed.
> 
> Wouldn't it have been easier to have proved the revised code the
> first time?  Simple little resource managers like that can be proved
> in a half hour or so, and then you don't embarass yourself.

Your have a valid point, but at least Interactive TRIED to fix the
problem.  AT&T has known about this bug for heaven-only-knows how
long and they've just finally gotten around to fixing it for R4.
And who knows if their fix is really right or not?!?
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
Domain: scjones@thor.UUCP  Path: uunet!sdrc!thor!scjones
My life needs a rewind/erase button. -- Calvin