On 2012.09.24 20:48, Orin Eman wrote: > <<If you don't like it, you can always revert...>> > > (Left in for context.)
Yes. And I do tend to mean what I write. If Greg is unhappy and wants to revert to libusb, so be it. For obvious reasons, it'll be hard for us to beat the non breakage of libusb... I also would have preferred to bump our minor for this API change, because I actually tend to subscribe to some of Greg's POV that an API breakage should always require a version bump, and I sure wouldn't mind severing some of the old compatibility headache we have with libusb (we _are_ a fork after all). We're clearly leaving libusb-1.0 in the dust, so why are we still spending so much time trying to pretend we aren't? That's the reason why I would very much prefer going 1.1 so that we can continue moving forward. I think it will be more beneficial for us in the long run (so long breakage introduced by libusb and libusbx fighting over the same shared library), and clearly we need to be in a position to decide our own evolution path. Plus, when we start introducing hotplug in 2.0, our users will have to go through that anyway, so we might as well kick off the upgrade process gradually. I guess my mistake was to think that libusbx was still unpopular enough to have the ability to fix API typos without bumping version. Oh well... 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
