Code quality (was Re: comctl32: Fix invalid syntax)
dank at kegel.com
Thu Feb 7 23:12:05 CST 2008
Bang Jun-young wrote:
>In fact, this is a well known mistake many newbie Win32 developers
>make (and fix in minutes). It shouldn't have been in the tree in the
>first place if he actually have read the patch. There are a lot of
>easily catchable bugs in the tree, for example, potential security
>holes like buffer overrun, meaningless comparison of unsigned < 0 (or
> > 0), misuse of BOOL vs. HRESULT, misuse of functions such as
> strcasecmp(), use of non-portable syntax, etc. Most of them (if not
> all) could be filtered out if he have read the patches carefully.
>That's the main reason why Wine keeps crashing every time I give it a
>try with my Windows apps.
I don't think so. In my experience, it's either a missing feature
or something more subtle. Outright bugs of the kind you
describe are the minority. I think.
> Since 1993, Wine has never gotten to the
> point where everybody could rely on it for his daily work. It has as
> awfully many bugs as Win95. I see something fundamentally
> wrong with development process.
Nah, Alexandre usually does a good job of screening patches.
We're lucky to have such a good maintainer, IMHO.
(I say this knowing full well that newbies are put off by
how difficult it is to get feedback because I have seen
much, much worse maintainers. Imagine if, say, that guy
who always yells at the newbies to not paste logs in
bug reports was the maintainer. We'd probably lose all
our developers in a month.)
So you're peeved you don't have commit access.
That's understandable, but it's time to get over it.
IMHO the single-committer system works pretty well
once you get into the swing of it. It actually forces at least
one code review on every patch!
More information about the wine-devel