Hi, On 04/25/2012 01:12 AM, Pete Batard wrote: > For the record we were there first with a versioning proposal, and > Peter took the deliberate decision to go over it and force our hand. > And yet, you're telling us that, libusbx having its hand forced is OK, > whereas libusb having its hand forced (i.e Peter reverting his extra > version field) apparently isn't something you're willing to consider? > > The facts are: > - Until libusbx used extra versioning, libusb wasn't using extra > versioning, and seemed to be fine not doing so. And nobody expected > Peter to introduce his own versioning in an unconcerted manner (where > people could have told him about the shortcomings), the day after > libusbx went public. > - We certainly didn't ask libusb to do anything with regards to extra > versioning - Peter could have just ignored the patch, or keep the > version struct as is and leave the nano unused, as libusb was doing it > until then. > - It is Peter alone who took the decision to deviate and break library > interchangeability... Yet there is no possibility of considering it > hostile? > - Somehow, this whole issue is something you see as a pure libusbx problem.
For the record I too I'm quit unhappy and frustrated with Peter's decision to "embrace and extend" our version API! > I can't help but wonder then, why, when in light of the above I try to > anticipate Peter's further potential attempts (either voluntary or > involuntary) to disrupt libusbx, you are taking objection, and worse, > because I dare formulate that we may want to tconsider repeats of this > very damaging act since we now have a precedent, I am suddenly to be > assumed as the one willing to cause harm? > > Until you ask Peter to remove his extra version field, which will be > equally good at solving the problem at hand, whatever you want to > argue here about my behaviour is cannot be deemed as receivable > because clearly, you are demonstrating that you aren't impartial to > the situation. I fully agree with the sentiment here, and I very much wish Peter never added these 2 fields. But unfortunately the versioning API is constructed such that we can grow the struct without breaking API but not shrink it. Don't get me wrong this is an excellent API design, often one can do neither, but this does mean that Peter cannot remove the fields without breaking the ABI compared to 1.0.9. This all just boils down to the describe addition being a stupid action by Peter, and shows that Pete is right wrt Peter changing from way too careful as a maintainer, delaying the release for ever and ever, to somewhat reckless adding patches and even making API + ABI changes without any discussion at all! Regards, Hans ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
