alt Hacker NewsWho remembers how careless, reckless, and blithe Rasmus Lerdorf was with the PHP 5.3.7 release he didn't bother to test, because running tests was too much of a hassle, because there were already so many test failures that wading through them all to see if there were any new ones was just too much to ask of him, the leader of the widely used project, in charge of cutting releases?
>5.3.7 upgrade warning: [22-Aug-2011] Due to unfortunate issues with 5.3.7 (see bug#55439) users should postpone upgrading until 5.3.8 is released (expected in a few days).
No seriously, he's literally as careless as he claims to be (when he says that repeatedly, you should believe him!), and his lack of giving a shit about things like tests and encryption and security that are extremely important has caused actual serious security problems, like breaking crypt() by checking in sloppy buggy code that would have caused a unit test to fail, but without bothering to run the unit tests (because so many of them failed anyway, so who cares??), and then MAKING A RELEASE of PHP 5.3.7 with, OF ALL THINGS, a broken untested crypt()!
Does anyone think that's just his sense of humor, a self deprecating joke, breaking then releasing crypt() without testing, that's funny in some context? What context would that be? Do they just laugh and shrug it off with "lol let Rasmus be Rasmus! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "?
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/jsudd/you_see_...
>r314434 (rasmus): Make static analyzers happy
>r315218 (stas): Unbreak crypt() (fix bug #55439) # If you want to remove static analyser messages, be my guest, but please run unit tests after
https://web.archive.org/web/20140818115440/http://svn.php.ne...
https://web.archive.org/web/20111014213651/https://plus.goog...
>Rasmus Lerdorf
>+Lorenz H.-S. We do. See http://gcov.php.net
>You can see the code coverage, test case failures, Valgrind reports and more for each branch.
>The crypt change did trigger a test to fail, we just went a bit too fast with the release and didn't notice the failure. This is mostly because we have too many test failures which is primarily caused by us adding tests for bug reports before actually fixing the bug. I still like the practice of adding test cases for bugs and then working towards making the tests pass, however for some of these non-critical bugs that are taking a while to change we should probably switch them to XFAIL (expected fail) so they don't clutter up the test failure output and thus making it harder to spot new failures like this crypt one.