Hi, On 05/21/2013 01:27 AM, Nathan Hjelm wrote: > > On May 20, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Pete Batard <p...@akeo.ie> wrote: > >> On 2013.05.20 08:01, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> I'm fine with calling the next release either 1.0.16 or 1.2.0, with no >>> real preference. >> >> As you may expect, I'd have a strong preference for 1.2.0. >> >>> I don't like 1.1.x because in some FOSS projects odd >>> minors are used for testing releases. >> >> Agreed. I too would like to leave provisions for testing, even if it's >> unclear whether we're actually going to use them. >> >> And yeah, since libusb has not yet defined how and where hp will be >> introduced, it's worth finding out which revision Nathan is leaning towards. > > Since no current APIs are broken by the addition of hotplug support I think > both 1.0.16 and 1.2.0 are fine. Though I am leaning towards 1.2.0 at this > point.
1.2.0 it is then. If no one beats me to it, I'll make my darwin-integration tree reflect this tomorrow. Regards, Hans p.s. Nathan, you said you were going to isolate a crash fix from your patch to speed up repeated libusb_init calls ? Or should I add that entire patch to my darwin-integration tree? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_may _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
