Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yes, this is roughly the distribution I expected. Maybe a few more spelling mistakes than I expected, but not as many style bugs, so the "harmful bug" / "harmless bug" / "cosmetic bug" distribution matched reasonably closely.

But I wouldn't call the harmless bugs "superficial nitpicks". Most of them could become problems later -- if other code changes result in the functions they are in being called with different parameters; or if an error is no longer treated as fatal but instead Tarsnap continues and retries the failed operation; or with more aggressive compiler optimizations.

Better to fix the bugs before they cause problems than to wait for them to cause problems.




Oh, I meant the cosmetic bugs specifically. And to be clear, I'm not saying they shouldn't have been reported. Issues like that _should_ be fixed. I just found it all vaguely amusing for some reason because unless I keep myself in check I'm so much that grammar and spelling and formatting guy when it comes to code reviews.


Ah, ok. My original motivation for offering bounties for those was as a proof-of-work for code reading -- I figured there would be enough of those that anyone who spent a while looking at the code would pick up a few, even if they couldn't find any "real" bugs.

The fact that it satisfied my OCD is just a side benefit. ;-)


Well, the funny thing about cosmetic bugs is that they tend to cluster with other, more subtle bugs (in my experience, at least, I'm more likely to find substantive errors by concentrating on sections of code near the obvious cosmetic bugs).




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: