Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxf!mhuxi!mhuhk!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.bugs.usg
Subject: Re: Comments on the preceeding bugs in System V
Message-ID: <2173@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 28-Mar-86 13:57:27 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.2173
Posted: Fri Mar 28 13:57:27 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Apr-86 06:47:21 EST
References: <566@stride.stride.UUCP>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL)
Lines: 19

In article <566@stride.stride.UUCP> bruce@stride.UUCP (Bruce Robertson) writes:
>Just a quick question... these are *serious* bugs in a *production* version
>of System V.  These aren't bugs due to our port to the 68000.  Also, these
>are NEW bugs; none of them existed in Release 1 of System V. I know that
>AT&T does Beta testing.  All of the bugs showed up within days of installing
>the new stdio package, and were tracked down and fixed within a couple of
>weeks.  I don't understand how they could have been missed by a
>thorough Beta test.  Does AT&T just ignore Beta test results, or is it
>just very careless when choosing Beta sites?

It would be interesting to hear how AT&T tests their code.
I have made literally over a thousand bug fixes to SVR2 (V1)
user-mode source code so far, and as you observe, many of
the bugs were newly introduced.  Interestingly, although I'm
one of the major redistributors of UNIX System V source code
to UNIX System vendors, I've never even been approached by
AT&T about being a code or SVID reviewer, test site, etc.

By the way, thanks for sharing your bug fixes.