Yup. I still need to figure out how to approach Peter and get control of the
domain. If he ever reverts our modifications (and removes my admin access) I
will ask him for the domain. Otherwise I will try to get him to give us the
domain before it renews next May.
---
Reply to this email directl
Take note Peter Stuge still owns libusb.org domain name. So he can changes back
the libusb.org if he wants to do that.
http://whois.net/whois/libusb.org
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/libusbx/libusbx/issues/123#issuecomment-21834506
-
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2013.07.30 20:24, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
>> I will keep this
>> branch in sync with the master. When do we want to make the official
>> switch? 1.0.18?
>
> There will be some more Windows related changes related to the libusbx
> -> libusb switc
On 2013.07.30 20:24, Nathan Hjelm wrote:
>> The only candidates which I see for 1.0.17 are Sean McBride's
>> fixes, and then esp. the xcode project file fix. But I'll leave
>> that up to Nathan.
There would also be the Windows/Android logging fixes proposed by Toby,
but I'm supposed to review tha
On Jul 30, 2013, at 09:48 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:Hi, I see that Nathan and I both have been working on closing various bugs so that we can do a 1.0.17 bug-fix release. Nathan beat me wrt pushing his changes by mere seconds, which meant I had to do a rebase (GRMBL :) Hah, noticed that. Sorry for
Hi,
I see that Nathan and I both have been working on closing various
bugs so that we can do a 1.0.17 bug-fix release. Nathan beat me
wrt pushing his changes by mere seconds, which meant I had to do
a rebase (GRMBL :)
So with the deadlock on exit fixed + Nathan's fixes, I think we
are in good sha
Hi Martin,
On 07/16/2013 11:32 AM, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Hello Hans and Pete,
>
> You'll find below an update for OpenBSD's libusb backend, freshly
> rebased on top of the last libusb/libusbx release.
>
> I sent it twice to Peter Stuge but it never get committed after we
> addressed all the iss
This is just a token issue to be closed when we release.
Required as closing all the other issues will close the milestone.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/libusbx/libusbx/issues/126
-
Hi,
On 07/20/2013 10:07 PM, Chris Dickens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This patch does indeed fix the deadlock condition on libusb_exit(), but
> unfortunately it opens up another opportunity for deadlock :(
>
> If the hotplug event thread is processing a hotplug event when it is
> cancelled, there is a chan
Ack, commit 707d500b9fea002f075cf30458a602f28dbd1348 referenced the wrong
issue. That commit closes this issue.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/libusbx/libusbx/issues/121#issuecomment-21798023
--
Closed #121.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/libusbx/libusbx/issues/121
--
Get your SQL database under version control now!
Version control is standard for application code, but da
Closed #125 via 872ff1704b79034af14cd09ac335bd97fe9be1ea.
---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/libusbx/libusbx/issues/125
--
Get your SQL database under version control now!
Version con
Libtool versioning should in particular work for cross platform applications,
and I have used it a lot for that purpose myself. But admittedly never with
Windows, which is unfortunately behaving very differently when it comes to
shared libraries compared to POSIX systems. So in some sense I am n
I appreciate that merging is incomplete and still requires a lot of work.
But my complaint is that this is highly intransparent, and the result is
confusing to outsiders. Indeed, except for that email I dug out from a mailing
list archive, there is no explicit hint that the libusb and libusbx pr
14 matches
Mail list logo
