Hi all, I've removed the libusbx-devel list since Pete Batard banned[1] me after I wrote that I considered the libusbx code to have a bug[2].
Pete Batard wrote: > It is my great pleasure The "hostile fork"[3] is a success; you can now call libusbx libusb, since Nathan Hjelm removed me from the libusb project on SourceForge. Nathan had worked on hotplug functionality in libusb but after review and feedback (like with many of Pete's proposals) there didn't seem to be understanding or perhaps agreement with the issues, and I wasn't able to help bring the work into maintainable form before patience ran out. I completely understand that Nathan decided to switch to working on libusbx. I do however not think that it was appropriate to give an ultimatum and remove me from the SF project, even if I wasn't responding to emails, even for quite some time. I think the decent move would have been to work on libusbx under the name of libusbx. But we're past that. I sent an email to libusb-devel in response to those events and got a private reply from Nathan saying "this ends now", "I am the sole libusb maintainer and I have welcomed libusbx's developers back into libusb." and "If you continue to be negative on the libusb-devel list I will perma-ban you." and since I guess that this email will be considered negative I guess that I might be banned from libusb-devel soon enough. I'll of course continue reading both libusb and libusbx lists, but since Pete and Nathan have made it clear that they don't think I can contribute to what they do I'll continue to work on my own. > the long awaited merging back of libusbx with libusb! Pete's rhetoric is, as always, excellent propaganda. .. > The only difference between them is that a bunch of strings, which > bear no impact on either the compilation or the API (95% of them > being in comments) say "libusbx" on one side and "libusb" on the > other. What has in fact happened is that libusbx developers have taken control of the libusb project on SourceForge and, as Pete describes, have now simply renamed libusbx to libusb. That's of course not a merge. I'm not going to fight a PR war and even if I tried I'd likely lose. I'm not a native speaker, not determined to express myself with hostility and no longer willing to fall down the pyramid of debate[4]. What I *will* however do is continue to work with the libusb.org code, website and community, as I have for more than 10 years. It doesn't show much, libusb.git hasn't seen commits for a long time and I have many unreplied emails, but I am still here and work is still ongoing, if slowly. There are changes coming to the git repo as well as some kind of release looming. I haven't spent much time on libusb.org lately but that doesn't make it dead. > the many bug fixes and new features of libusbx, into libusb It's true that libusbx has bug fixes and new features which aren't yet in the libusb.org code but it's also true that the libusbx code has technical issues caused by bad implementations and bad design, both of which I don't want to include in the libusb.org git and which I work on removing from libusb.org code in cases where it already exists. I disagree with quite many developers because I am very critical of code, my own as well as that of others, because I think there's more than enough bad software in the world already and that the reason to spend spare time on open source is to make software as good as we possibly can. Everybody doesn't agree with that - and that's fine. > With this release however, we had to make some adjustments to our URLs > (mostly because the person in charge of the original domain wasn't > interested in helping the project move forward) Nathan wrote that he'd prefer if I gave away the libusb.org domain name but that it didn't really matter much. I indeed do not want to help the libusbx project move forward, which Pete makes sound as if I have refused to support libusb. I stopped wanting to help move libusbx forward when I was banned from the list and nobody said a word in protest. (Maybe because Pete suggested that he wouldn't care if anyone complained about censorship.[1] again) The SF events didn't help bring me around. > Please make sure you update your tracking of the project as required. If you want unfinished new features and some poor design choices then yes, follow libusbx to the new domain name. If you prefer a carefully, albeit slowly, maintained codebase then you can remain confident with the libusb.org website and code. If you are affected by any bugs then please get in touch. The next release of libusb.org code (whatever that will mean) will be API and ABI compatible with libusbx code since I still consider compatibility more important than fixing libusbx's API mistakes. I've had less motivation for libusb after having dealt with Pete's propaganda within the libusb project, the hostile fork he has led and the tireless slander, ad-hominems and name calling which I guess might continue long after I'm not around anymore. I've considered simply stopping work on the libusb.org code several times, but I always come to the same conclusion: I can not deploy libusbx code in production because of the issues with the code and libusbx maintainers do not share my concerns, so I'll continue working on the libusb.org code, adding further value to that codebase. I am grateful to those of you who support my efforts, but it seems that neither libusb-devel nor libusbx-devel is the place. Best regards //Peter [1] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=30226534 [2] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=30224334 [3] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=29162746 [4] http://www.netbooknews.com/wp-content/2011/07/the-pyramid-of-debate-550x417.jpg -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
