Cannot reboot from busybox
rob at landley.net
Fri Dec 23 22:15:33 UTC 2005
On Friday 23 December 2005 13:03, John Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:50:05 -0600, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net>
> >I don't remember us having fixed this problem already, but I'd like
> >to rule it out first when we're this close to a release.
> There seems to be a flurry of bug activity here near the end of the
> year. Maybe January 1st is not a good choice of release date.
I've noticed this.
> Are we trying to meet a corporate style deadline?
Nope, I've never been paid a dime for my busybox work (although I just got a
new job that involves busybox so I won't be able to say that much longer). I
just need a deadline to have actual releases occur.
> Why January 1st?
Well, when said that I didn't expect to be traveling for a job interview, get
sick, and then be out of town for the holidays. I also didn't expect closing
out the existing bug list to spawn several new ones. :)
> And why cut a release with known serious bugs, when another release
> will be needed six to eight weeks later, just to fix those bugs?
I don't intend to cut a release with known serious bugs. If necessary, I'd
pull a couple all-nighters to clear them out. (Don't underestimate how much
I can do under the influence of deadlines and lots of caffeine.)
That said, at this point I'm thinking the January 1 thing is going to have to
be -pre2 with the real release a couple weeks later.
But _something_ is going out Jan 1. Grrr.
> Cutting a release may bring more testers, and bugs, scurrying out of
> the woodwork. Maybe 1.1.0 will be the "big bug test" release. Seems
> like extra work for you, though.
Whenever you do a release new people start using it and then you get new bug
reports. It always works that way. I just want to clear out the bugs we
_know_ about first. And without a big push, releases don't happen.
Steve Ballmer: Innovation! Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
More information about the busybox