[BusyBox] the bug system and 1.0.1

[Tito]

On Saturday 16 July 2005 00:07, Paul Fox wrote:
> okay -- 
> 
> here's my view of what's in the bug system, vis a vis 1.0.1. 
> this clearly isn't definitive -- it's a first pass.
> 
> there are 34 bugs in the "Yes" category -- the criteria i used
> for the "Yes" category were that the change be already available
> as a patch, be simple to understand, obviously correct, and
> obviously useful.  or obviously well-tested -- references to
> test-quites scored big points.  (here "obvious" was defined to be
> "obvious to paul".  other definitions of "obvious" will be
> proposed, no doubt. :-)  one or two might slightly more complex
> fixes might have slipped in simply because i know personally that
> they've been well exercised -- #142, ("unzip enhancements"),
> falls into this category.  feel free to disagree with any or all.
> also note that i haven't tried to apply any of the supplied
> patches yet -- this sorting was purely on the assumption that the
> patches are still applicable.
> 
> while doing this, i caught some things that are already in
> svn, and i've marked them (here) as resolved.  erik has given me
> bug system developer access, so i'll mark them there as well,
> after double checking.  there may be others that are already in
> svn as well that i missed.  there are also some that might be
> useful/correct, but that i know other folks know more about than
> i do -- changes to mount and init, for instance.
> 
> as rob pointed out, nothing should go into 1.0.1 unless it's also
> in 1.1 (in identical or equivalent form).  it would be good if
> someone went through them to check my work, but i'm happy to
> apply these to either or both repositories, unless someone else
> would rather.  (i don't have commit privs yet, but erik and i
> were just talking about that.)
> 
> paul
> 
Hi,
This two patches are already in the big rc1 patch, I've tried
to mark them as resolved in the BTS but I was only able to
add a follow up message ( maybe I'm to dumb or I'm missing 
some permissions?)
> Yes -- these are candidates for 1.0.1, maybe
> -----------------
This one is a trivial fix and nobody complained so far ( maybe it is not used at all ...;-)
> 0000006 Other          minor   06-06-05 [PATCH] devfsd wrong error messages patch

> Maybe -- someone else should take a look at these
> ---------------
BTW: this one was tested many times over the content of my whole linux box with a test script
           and should be safe to be applied.
> 0000016 Other          tweak   06-06-05 [PATCH] size optimization for strings applet
Ciao,
Tito