busybox_1_1_stable branch [was: Re: is NFS mounting borked in bb-1.1.1?]

[Rob Landley]

On Monday 27 March 2006 3:18 am, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 09:31:14PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> >On Friday 24 March 2006 8:47 am, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >>   after upgrading to bb-1.1.1 earlier this morning, i have been
> >> *utterly* unable to successfully NFS mount what used to work just fine
> >> under bb-1.00.  (bb-1.1.1 on client, NFS server running on FC4
> >> system.)
> >
> >I don't use nfs so I have no idea, but I'm pondering having a
> >"busybox-1.1.1.fixes.patch" in the download directory that we add to if we
> >find stupid stuff like the losetup dependency thing.  (I'm not releasing a
> >1.1.1, but I can have a patch to fix known issues...)
> >
> >Each of these fixes would of course need to be checked into the current
> > tree first.  (Something to resolve the issue, anyway.  Not necessarily
> > the same exact patch.)
> >
> >Comments?
>
> This is IMO supposed to be done via a stable branch of busybox, which we
> currently still don't have:

That didn't work very well with 1.01.  I made it outside of that tree, and the 
continuing divergence of that tree from the -devel branch is probably the 
main reason there wasn't a 1.02.  There's still one orphaned fix in 1.01 I 
know of (fixing tar to always shell out to gzip/bzip rather than try to use 
the built-in versions).

> $ svn ls svn://busybox.net/branches/
> busybox_0_60_stable/
> busybox_1_00_stable/
> uClibc-nptl/
> $
>
> The busybox_1_1_stable branch would be open for fixes only. Other
> projects have the convention that fixes for stable branches are checked
> into trunk first (if appropriate) and tested there for a few days and
> only then are applied to the stable branch. I think that this convention
> makes sense.

Checking in fixes to the current development line makes sense, agreed.

I'll probably put up a patch with known fixes in the download directory this 
evening.  The date stamp on that says when it's last updated, and I'll start 
the file with a list of URLs to the downloads/patches/svn-* entry for each 
fix.

The problem with issuing more dot-releases is that right after a release 
somebody seems to notice a new bug every 12 hours or so, most of which are 
pretty trivial or very specific to certain people.  You shouldn't have to 
download a new tarball three times a week for tiny fixes that probably don't 
even apply to you.

Keep in mind that I'm trying to get 1.1.2 out in June.  Do you want to branch 
the tree _again_ in June?

> PS:
> <blindvt_> andersee, landley, oh and could you two please make sure that
> we have a branch for the stable busybox-1.1.x series?
> <andersee> blindvt_: certainly

Yeah, I remember him saying that.

> PPS: I'm *assuming* that there is a 1.1.1 release as i can't seem to
> find an announcement thereof in the ML archives.

It went on the website, in the news section.

> A simple 
>  Subject: busybox 1.1.1 released
>  Detailed announcement will follow later on
> would have done it for me..

It was the same as -rc2, which nobody seems to have commented on.  I thought I 
told people it was coming that evening.  I did that release from the cafe 
without my laptop plugged in, and the battery doesn't last so long anymore...

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.