waiting for reply; timeout? [was: "i'll think about it"]

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 11:30:21AM +0200, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 02:54:11PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
>>On Friday 22 September 2006 4:25 am, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 11:25:04PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> >On Thursday 21 September 2006 5:45 pm, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
>>> 
>>> >> It's ment as a suggestion to emit the string conditionally in case
>>> >> somebody wants to preserve the behaviour of the bloated normal binary
>>> >> that is not in busybox.
>>> >
>>> >The normal binary?  (Rummage...)  Ah, so there is.  Part of X from _1984_.  
>>> >Wow.
>>> >
>>> >Ok, preserving the behavior of that strikes me as a good thing.  I guess 
>>that 
>>> 
>>> I've applied it as r16176 for now.
>>> Feel free to wipe it out of the tree like you did with taskset, if you
>>> feel like.
>>
>>Done.
>
>Thanks so much.

I consider "Thu Sep 21 13:17:44 PDT 2006" as the starting point.

At the time of this writing, roughly 62 hours have passed since then.

Don't get me wrong, please. I'm just concerned about the rate at which
we're able to make progress.
How long are we supposed to wait? Another 3 days? A month?


Remember "df -k /" being broken?
http://busybox.net/lists/busybox/2004-May/011643.html
Entered 03-12-05 20:11 as http://bugs.busybox.net/view.php?id=145
landley> 2006-Jul-11 "I'll fix it."
http://www.busybox.net/lists/busybox/2006-July/023142.html



There are several things that are "waiting". Let's continue with df,
since we're already there:

me     > 2005-Aug-15 add "df -P -B"
landley> 2005-Aug-16 "Lemme take a whack at further cleanups on this,
ok?"
http://busybox.net/lists/busybox/2005-August/015469.html
<nada>



What happened to "df -t", out of curiousity?
http://busybox.net/lists/busybox/2005-August/015497.html

If something is better done in a different way, then fine, outline it
and the submitter will usually try to pursue that approach.
Please understand that collaboration to make progress depends on tasks
not be blocked indefinitely, obviously.