On 2012.04.20 08:43, Peter Stuge wrote: > Hans Petter Selasky wrote: >> What's new with libusbx? > > I asked myself the very same thing when I read the announcement. > > It turned out to be not very much.
As is the case for any a fork that starts. In a few months, it will hopefully be a different story... >> What API's are you changing? > > As was mentioned libusbx.git added the libusb_get_version() API, > which was already shot down once by Daniel, and I also don't like it, > but I've added it to libusb.git anyway. As you will understand, we're not trying to force you to add any APIs on libusb, and of course you are free to reuse whatever we add. But it's up to you to decide to pick it up or not. We'll probably have a lot more changes which you don't like (whether because of the feature itself or the way we implement it), and we are unlikely to apply the libusb patches we pick as is, if we see room for improvement. Therefore, if you want to minimize the gap on libusb, you're likely to have a difficult time. As far as I am concerned, libusb and libusbx are now two very independent projects, which, while sharing the same initial codebase and the same API, are doing their own implementations, regardless of what the other side does or prefers. You're of course free to post here with regards to our implementations of items that you would like to reuse, but there's no guarantee we will follow your preference. > I think that libusbx.git may be a perfect place for continued Windows > backend development. Not at all, and I want to make this absolutely clear to our users, as of course it's in your interest to dismiss the whole libusbx effort as an "improved" Windows backend when it is everything but. Libusbx is not, and has never been intended to be focused on Windows only. As a matter of fact, so that there wouldn't be the shadow of a doubt, I would have preferred not being a project maintainer, but circumstances have decided otherwise. libusbx is intended as the place for continued libusb development, for core as well as ALL backends, and was created because, under your governance, we think that libusb has become a very unfriendly ground to do so. Among other things, we saw it as very damaging that someone who proposes a patch in libusb is unlikely to see it integrated/processed in a timely fashion, let alone released, and as a result, users who could benefit from new features or bugfixes are left stranded. We are taking over the whole project, and not just the Windows backend, in the attempt to compensate for the above and deliver where you have consistently failed to deliver. > It could even be considered a topic branch of libusb.git. Again wrong. Libusbx is completely disjoint from libusb. If you want to consider libusbx as a topic branch of libusb.git, then libusb is also a topic branch of libusbx.git. Libusbx is no more a branch of libusb as Gnome is a branch of KDE. It's its own project. Some of our goals, provided features, and API may be the same, but that's about it. > I will of course pick commits into libusb.git which look > good, and I assume that it will happen the other way around as well. Absolutely. And you are welcome to do so. We may even try to help you if you have questions about those. >> You do not need to take sides right now, > > I don't really think there are conflicting sides. It's all one > codebase. Not really. Unless you plan to relinquish your administrative privileges on libusb and transfer them to us, or reluctantly follow exactly what we do, the codebase is going to diverge. As you are aware, myself and a few others have an irreconcilable differences with regards to your approach to project maintenance, and we very much expect it to be a source of conflicts between the codebase. Thus, as with KDE vs Gnome, we very much expect users to take a side on which of libusb or libusbx they want to use. I don't think there has ever existed a fork that didn't require users to take a side, which of course they are free to switch at any time (or for each project), but hardly anyone using KDE|Gnome, gPXE|iPXE, Hudson|Jenkins is expected to run both at once on the same platform. > Lei Chen wrote: >> There's no maintenance on libusb 1.0? > > Yes, there is. The 250 or so commits on libusb.git master since the > previous release speak for themselves. And we think the absence of any release for 2 years, *DESPITE* hundreds of commits, speaks for itself. This is the reason that prompted the fork. And I'm afraid that we're past the point where what you attempt to do now can make a difference. Regards, /Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
