Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by melchebo 19 days ago
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.

1 comments

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.