[BusyBox] Busybox 1.1.

[Erik Andersen]

On Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 08:45:55PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> Okay, my new laptop seems mostly functional now, and I'm catching up on the 
> past couple weeks' accumulated email.  (My reactions to kbuntu are mixed, but 
> at least it's not Fedora.)
> 
> In addition to catching up on the gazillions of back patches that I have in my 
> "review this and check it in" folder, I've also got an idea I want to bounce 
> off of Erik:
> 
> 1) I'd like to get a busybox 1.0.1 release out in the next month or two.
> 2) I'd like to fork a busybox 1.1 tree and start attacking the TODO list.

Souns like a very reasonable plan.

> Opening busybox 1.1 gives us the ability to say "no" to new features in 
> busybox 1.0 without actually rejecting them.  That can become a 
> bug-fixes-only branch, with new features added to 1.1.  We need more regular 
> releases of 1.0.  It's been over seven months since 1.0.

Yep.  As you have notived I've not done very well at cutting
regular releases...

> So, Erik: opinions?

How about the following.  If you do:

    svn co "svn+ssh://svn.uclibc.org/svn/branches/busybox_1_00_stable/"

you will get a copy of the newly created "busybox_1_00_stable"
branch, which can be kept stable for BusyBox 1.01 and beyond
while active world changing compile breaking work continues in
the mainline "busybox" repository.  Sound workable?

Just for grins I just did a

    svn co "svn+ssh://svn.uclibc.org/svn/tags/busybox_1_00/"

and compared vs the newly created "busybox_1_00_stable" branch:

    diff -urN --exclude .svn busybox_1_00_stable/ busybox_1_00/

and diffstat show 1715 files changed, 168766 insertions(+),
201592 deletions(-).  Ouch.  We may wish to remove some of the
more recently added shiny new features from busybox_1_00_stable
and keep only in the mainline busybox 1.1 tree... The ext2fs
handling code perhaps.  Thoughts?

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--