[BusyBox] the bug system and 1.0.1

[Rob Landley]

On Friday 15 July 2005 17:07, Paul Fox wrote:

> Yes -- these are candidates for 1.0.1, maybe
> -----------------
> 0000006 Other          minor   06-06-05 [PATCH] devfsd wrong error messages

Sounds like SVN commit 10480...

Ah, I remember now.  I rejected this patch because it's 95% whitespace changes 
with a tiny amount of functional changes hidden deep in there.  (I don't mind 
whitespace changes, but mixing them with functional changes means you're 
looking for a needle in a haystack trying to review it.)  I complained until 
somebody split out just the functional changes, and that was 10480.  So I 
_think_ this patch is trash now, unless somebody wanted to split out the 
whitespace changes, and let's face it: we're talking about devfs.

Speaking of which, now that the kernel's yanked devfs, how long are we going 
to keep devfsd?  (We don't have an applet deprication policy, that I'm aware 
of.  I suspect it'll be a while, since so many embedded people are still 
using 2.2 (!), but thought I'd raise the issue...)

> patch 0000007 Standards      minor   06-21-05 which and wd-located files

Huh, I don't see bug 7...

Ok, I'd once again like to explain WHY I hate the bug tracking system.  Random 
example #12: drilling down into the bug system from the link on the busybox 
page doesn't just show you busybox bugs.  Random example #43: Its' default 
sort of the "view all bugs" page once you _have_ selected busybox bugs ends 
with bugs 8, 37, 28, 27, 26, 45, and 3.

I don't suppose I could convince you to email me off list with the description 
+ patch of all the patches you want me to review?  The bug tracking system is 
_icky_.

Rob