On 2012.07.12 23:28, Peter Stuge wrote: > I tried to make clear that I have no entitlement in libusbx beyond > freedom of speech.
There's freedom of speech, and there's trolling. IMO, you're getting dangerously close to the second one when the opinions you feel free to express consistently run up opposite the ones expressed by the actual maintainers of libusbx. This result in us having to spend time clarifying that you do not speak for the the libusbx project at all, and that what you invite libusbx contributors to do, which only matters *if* they really plan to get involved in two projects instead of once, might run contrary to what we would like. The only outcome of this is the penalization of libusbx contributors, who are getting inconsistent messages, no matter how you try to present them. While you are certainly free to try to contribute to any libusbx discussion, be mindful that we're not going to look to kindly if someone consistently appears to ask our contributors to waste time pursuing endeavours that we do not endorse. > I'm sorry that you feel that I try to undermine the libusbx project. > I can't change how you feel, I can just state that I certainly do not > participate on the libusbx list in order to undermine the project. Yet you do, and you don't seem to get the hint. You've been around long enough, so you should have a good idea whether what you would like someone to do will be aligned with what libusbx maintainers are likely to ask. Especially, compared to what I remember from libusb, you're surprisingly reactive to topics that pop up on libusbx, often replying within the hour, which I can't help but construe as an effort to undermine our project by trying to bring your *unaffiliated* and often contrary views first. Please be mindful that libusbx is not an extension of libusb. It's a fork that only exists because a lot of us found it impossible to follow your directions (if libusb was led by anybody else but you, we would not have forked). So my advice would be: if you have some doubt that what you ask from a contributor may be different from what the libusbx maintainers will ask, which you should have, then please refrain from jumping head on into providing directions that we will have to undo. Instead, provided that you really want to participate that badly in our project, try to stick to the actual code content. >> My focus is on libusb, which is why I wrote that I commented in the > context of the libusb project. Then, as I asked, please try to first see with the OP if they want to bring that conversation to libusb, *especially* if you are going to try to provide them with directions that are likely to run contrary to ours, as these will of course be off-topic. > I included the libusbx list because > code is nearly identical in the two projects. Yet libusbx is an independent fork, which has no pretence to trying to keep the code near-identical (that's only something you want). That the code is currently near identical is a mere byproduct of the fork being young, not a feature we will go out of our way to keep. > Everyone already knows that I have nothing to do with the libusbx > integration process. Really? While I'm aware that Toby has been around, do you really expect that every single contributor will "know" what your involvement in libusbx is before joining our list? Do people who want to contribute to a list need to investigate the participants and history beforehand? All they will see is some guy trying to speak with authority by giving them directions, no matter how they present it, that they may then try to act on, before finding out that they get a completely different set of directions later on. That's not helpful. At all. > I guess that everyone also knows that you > consider my comments to be polluting the libusbx community. The ones that don't pertain to reviewing code certainly have been, since they've been forcing us to comment and undo some of your statements. > I think both projects benefit from common technical discussion. Doing that would be akin to brush off the fork and the reason behind it, which is something that you've already tried to do by labelling libusbx as a mere topic branch... I'm afraid that as long as technical discussions will be plagued by the uncompromising view of how you want things, which is really the main reason we forked, the benefit of a common technical discussions will be minimal at best. >> Someone comes up with something that you just don't like, and now >> they have to stand trial? > > You're misrepresenting what I wrote, but I think I understand what > you mean. > > During review I found something that I think can be improved, so I > asked for discussion. If there is no discussion that's fine. Please re-read what you said. You've been asking Toby to write an essay because he went a route that you don't like. When you're asking for someone to sell you an idea, after you expressed a strong opinion against it, it's difficult to misrepresent that as an invitation for discussion. > You know that I don't think committing code in any state to libusb.git > is a good way to do libusb development Exactly. And you're actually indicating that you know the contention points we are likely to have on libusbx as soon as you try to push your views there. So please get a clue already, and don't use the libusbx mailing list to invite contributors into doing things that we will not ask them to do. Reserve that to libusb. >> justify something that is unrelated to code (breakdown of files) > > Refactoring and reuse is not about files, but about the code inside. > > I saw potential for reuse during review, and documentation confirms > that some code comes from the existing windows code, so I asked for a > bit of discussion of considerations leading to the code duplication. No. You asked for Toby to write an essay. If you feel that strongly about it, *you* should be the one elaborating on the pros and cons of each approach, and why you think that Toby should invest extra time following yours. When you're actually asking someone for what they have most valuable (their time), you'd rather be prepared to make a darn good case for it. >> So please kindly take your "sell us your choice" bullshit elsewhere, > > Everyone already knows that my opinion is not relevant for libusbx. Yet you pollute our mailing list with it when we really have better things to do than hear a rehash of how you would like patches to be integrated in libusb, whereas that opinion should really be confined to the actual project where it belongs. > Common discussion with both libusb and libusbx is still useful. Then stick to the code and only the code. If you want to talk about patch integration, and how you would like a contributor to proceed with it, then either do it privately, or bring that discussion to libusb-devel list. There you'll be free to ask for whatever extra massaging you like on non-code items. Regards, /Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
