[Swan-dev] On re-applying "pluto: warn if loaded connection ended up unoriented" et.al.

[Paul Wouters]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024, Andrew Cagney wrote:

>> Also, please use separate commits for code and test cases in the future.
>
> Except this wasn't my mess.
>
> I was dealing with a commit that, once it became clear was broken,
> should have been quickly reverted, followed by an incomplete trickle
> of test changes.

I don't see why. Whoever is working on the bug can work on 2af2e7f6^
Removing it just risks the bug remaining and the issue being unsolved
and appearing later in less clear circumstances only for some users
in a released version, causing us to issue a CVE. I'd rather see half
the test cases explode and us focussing on resolving the bug.

Regardless, the code commit and the test case changes could still
appear in two separate commits.

> there's one test and one code change _and_ the pair score a 100% clean
> bill of health from a test run:

It's a "clean bill of health" that actually brushed the real problem of
abuse of RC_LOG_SERIOUS side effects under the carpet. How many CVEs
could that lead to if we shipped with the RC_LOG_SERIOUS -> RC_LOG
change? How long until another RC_LOG_SERIOUS crasher is accidentally
introduced and not caught by a testcase for another CVE?

Paul