Comment by melchebo | Hacker News Reader

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by melchebo | Hacker News Reader

Btw, the bug itself was introduced in 30656c5e by Claude Code, and I guess.. improper human review and testing.

https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/commit/30656c5e

Someone using AI to bisect recent rsync. https://github.com/themgt/rsync-compare-link-dest-341-343-re...

Someone trying to fix it with more Claude Code: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/pull/930

Related ticket: https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/issues/915

I'd recommend putting in more regression testing in the commit before 30656c5e, and rebase it forward while keeping functionality.

That makes the original complaint look, well just plain wrong.

This wasn't "unwanted new features". Tridge was fixing a security issue, related to a bug report. I sympathise - we are all getting slammed with security issues. Fixing them isn't optional. I can't say I enjoy returning to decade old software to do it - so colour me impressed that tridge is putting in the effort.

I'm also guilty of using LLMs to help me get past this mess. I dunno what tridge is doing - but I check every line of code it spits out. Nonetheless, I have no doubt bugs slipping through is a real danger. I haven't looked at the code in a long while, I'm not as familiar with it as I once was. So a bug slipping through is not a big surprise.

Which brings us to the one odd thing about the blow up. The original complainer seems very protective of his backup system - yet tridge's commit was only 2 weeks ago. I know tridge is good - but surely you treat this as alpha software. What was he thinking? Maybe he has a bit to learn about building reliable systems himself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com