Colin, thanks for the explanation. I suggest an additional change to your pre-release process: all code must be peer reviewed. This is by far the most effective quality control measure you can implement, much more so than unit testing or "double-checking". I wouldn't trust any mission-critical production code that hasn't been peer-reviewed, much less crypto code.
Code review is always good, but some code deserves more checking that other code. There are some parts of Tarsnap where the worst that could happen is that you'll get some mangled messages printed to the terminal -- that code is clearly not as deserving of testing as the core cryptographic functionality.
I didn't word what I said as well as I could have, but what I meant was to emphasize the "require review before submission" part, not the "all code" part. Do you have mandatory peer review on security-critical code already?
