On 2012.09.07 11:03, Hans de Goede wrote: > Looks good, as for the anonymous union versus not, given that you > clearly dislike it and I can understand why (its ugly), lets just > go with the rename.
OK. If we think this needs to be discussed further, I don't have a problem pushing the MaxPower -> bMaxPower back to 1.0.14. > We must however then document this in NEWS, Absolutely! API breakage, which is really what we're dealing with here, is about as big a news as it gets for our users => the last thing we want is to have that fly under their radar. > including documenting the necessary #ifdef for code using it to > be able to compile with both older and newer versions of libusbx, > as indicated in another reply to this thread, upstreams will want > to adjust to the new bMaxpower name, while still keeping there > code compiling on systems which have an older libusb installed. > > And I think we should make this easy by spelling out how they > can #ifdef things to make this work, rather then make them > figure that out themselves. Agreed too. Also, since this is a contention point, I'm gonna wait at least a few days before pushing that change, in case there are more opinions to be heard. 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
