On 5 Jul 2012, at 01:18, Wander Lairson Costa <wander.lair...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO, there is no point in releasing a new version which changes > nothing. Also, I see no good point releasing 1.0 as stable with > possibility of radical changes in the API yet. Conversely, it could be a real issue for many projects if the API for 1.0 radically changes from now. I guess that there are many users of PyUSB 1.0.alpha by now, and it is quite weird to install an "alpha" version for years... I would have prefered to get a 1.0 w/o new features and delay any new features/ API update till 1.1 or 2.0 if the API is really broken w/o any backward compatibility, rather than relying on this alpha scheme for so many months. PyUSB is impressively robust - at least for our usages - and I'd really like so see it tagged some day. Releasing often is really a requirement to build projects on top of it, which need to manage version dependencies. Keeping PyUSB with an alpha suffix does not carry the API break information. It's too late to introduce a 0.9xx numbering scheme which might have help to discriminate versions with API breaks. Anyway, the path to 1.0 target may take some time - and the current solution is quite difficult to manage. No offense here, I REALLY like PyUSB, it is a wonderful Python library! My two cents... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/ _______________________________________________ pyusb-users mailing list pyusb-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pyusb-users
