Hi,
On 04/25/2012 01:12 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> For the record we were there first with a versioning proposal, and
> Peter took the deliberate decision to go over it and force our hand.
> And yet, you're telling us that, libusbx having its hand forced is OK,
> whereas libusb having its hand force
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Hans de Goede wrote:
>> my vote *in this case* goes to adding the 2 fields.
>
> I pushed the attached commit to libusb-stuge.git x/version_rc_describe
> which is based on current libusbx.git master.
>
> Anyone wanting to apply the change can gr
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2012.04.20 12:37, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> Yes I agree 1.0.11 is very ambitious. I will get the following
>> done.
>> Ext: duplicate libusb bugs that we would like to address in libusbx
>
> Thanks. There's quite a lot to do there as well, so I
On 24 April 2012 13:46, Michael Plante wrote:
> Pete Batard wrote:
>>> getting early user feedback wasn't that important?
>>> [...]
>>> Remember his other statement of people like himself (i.e. alleged "good"
>>> maintainers) simply being able to "feel" what was right or wrong in
>>> terms of deve
Hi,
I think it is important for the future of libusb that we are able to agree on
a common API among the various implementations of libusb and are able to
separate that from code development, and not diverge into various non-
compatible libraries.
--HPS
Hi,
On 04/24/2012 12:44 PM, Kustaa Nyholm wrote:
> On 4/24/12 13:13, "Pete Batard" wrote:
>
>> On 2012.04.24 07:38, Kustaa Nyholm wrote:
>>> Thanks,but I think I was just curious for the actual technical issues
>>> those new fields will cause.
>>
>> Well, to me the technical issue, is that in its
Kustaa Nyholm wrote:
>> Ah, so Peter's 'solution' (as I've said I've been tool lazy to look
>> at the code) to some perceived problem requires that the build
environment
>> invokes git ?!
No, it requires we either choose to not invoke git and make it blank, or
that we TRY to invoke git and fail gr
On 4/24/12 13:13, "Pete Batard" wrote:
>On 2012.04.24 07:38, Kustaa Nyholm wrote:
>> Thanks,but I think I was just curious for the actual technical issues
>> those new fields will cause.
>
>Well, to me the technical issue, is that in its current instance,
>Peter's patch completely ignores MS buil
On 2012.04.24 07:38, Kustaa Nyholm wrote:
> Thanks,but I think I was just curious for the actual technical issues
> those new fields will cause.
Well, to me the technical issue, is that in its current instance,
Peter's patch completely ignores MS build environments, as well as any
environment wh
Please pardon my intrusion into this discussion, I'm simply an avid
fan of the library and an interested user.
> Notice the deliberate use of "run both at once" and on the "same
> platform", rather than "installed" and "network"
This distinction is exceptionally important.
> Unless you go great
10 matches
Mail list logo
