Ooops! I'm really sorry about the flamebait title. I meant to change
it to something less aggressive, but forgot to do that before hitting
send. Sorry, I don't mean to be offensive or harsh here. Maybe I
shouldn't write emails after staying up coding all night. ;)

-William

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 6:10 AM, William Swanson <swansontec@???> wrote:
> Hello,
> I have just spent the past several hours debugging my hd_keys code. I
> have gotten to the point where the unit tests no longer segfault, but
> have not yet gotten to the point where they return correct results.
> There is still more debugging to do. I know I am not the only person
> who has experienced broken code recently. In fact, this seems to be a
> persistent theme recently, both on the mailing list and on IRC.
>
> Look, refactoring is great. Refactoring is wonderful. But refactoring
> *must* be accompanied by testing. Otherwise, how do we know if we have
> actually accomplished anything useful? Please, please, please, can we
> slow things down a bit and put more care and attention into what goes
> into the codebase?
>
> Now, with this being said, I really do like the direction things are
> moving. The new hashing interfaces are much nicer from a libbitcoin
> perspective. I just wish they had been unit-tested before they had
> gone in, as is standard engineering practice.
>
> I would also like to discuss the whole "utility/external" folder
> thing. I am not entirely comfortable with grabbing source code from
> other libraries. Do we really want to maintain this? It would be less
> bad if these were just straight copies, but they are not. They have
> been arbitrarily reformatted, to the point where we can no longer do
> any sort of meaningful diff with upstream. In fact, it was this
> reformatting that produced one of the segfaults in the first place.
>
> -William