Hi Pete,
Thanks for the update. I can understand the unexpected developments are
more important. I forgot to apologise in my last email for taking almost
two months to implement your review comments.
I'll try to remember to rebase my branch off libusbx master every so
often. But do let me know
Hi Toby,
Just to let you know we're not forgetting about you (and thanks for the
updating your branch)!
As you may have seen, we got some unexpected development that are going
to tie us down for a while, but as soon as that gets out of the way,
WinCE integration will be one of my top prioritie
Hi,
I've updated my branch ( https://github.com/tobygray/libusbx/tree/wince)
with your review comments.
The only one I didn't do was pulling some of the common code out of
windows_usb.c and wince_usb.c.
In merging the poll_wince.c and poll_windows.c, I removed the use of
_open() and _close()
Pete Batard wrote:
> Of course it would be quite ironic if intel were the ones who pushed MS
> and others to use ia64 in the first place, in order to push brand
> recognition (ia = "Intel Architecture"), and got bitten at their own
> game when their competitor both followed suit with amd64 and a
On 2012.08.06 19:07, Tim Roberts wrote:
> I assume this irritates Intel every time they see it, and so they keep
> having guys in nice suits whisper in the ears of Microsoft management
> that "it would really be more fair and accurate if you dropped the amd64
> name". That's gradually happening ov
Pete Batard wrote:
> and it seems Microsoft can't stick to a naming convention anyway (For
> instance, in latest WinUSB redistributables [1] MS replaced "amd64" for
> "x64" for the x86_64 binaries)...
Well, they do have to worry about pressure from their partners. When
AMD first proposed the 64
On 2012.08.06 09:39, Toby Gray wrote:
> All your comments seem sensible. I'm happy to make the suggested changes
> myself.
>
> I'm a bit busy at the moment so it'll be towards the end of this week or
> the start of next week that I'll get time to do this though.
That's fine. We got plenty to keep
On 05/08/12 23:24, Pete Batard wrote:
> Finally got around to have a closer look at the winCE branch.
Thank you for taking the time to look at it.
All your comments seem sensible. I'm happy to make the suggested changes
myself.
I'm a bit busy at the moment so it'll be towards the end of this we
Finally got around to have a closer look at the winCE branch.
I don't have much to say with regards to the bulk of the code which
looks OK to me (perhaps move STATUS_HALT_FLAG from wince_usb.c to the
header?). Note that the Windows backend chose not to reference WinUSB.h
and link against WinUSB
On 13/07/12 14:06, Pete Batard wrote:
>> I've put an alternative fix into the branch which I plan to keep rebased
>> on libusbx/master:
>> https://github.com/tobygray/libusbx/commit/4b0f2413ae85d197db8721e2fda5a85355d95e1b
>>
>> The only thing I'm not sure of in this fix is that wince_usb.c doesn't
On 12/07/12 19:31, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Hi Toby,
>
> As Pete likes to point out I have no authority in the libusbx
> project, so as far as libusbx is concerned I think the best
> might be if you could pretend that I had never posted this
> feedback on the libusbx list.
Thank you for spending time
On 07/13/2012 09:06 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2012.07.13 12:56, Toby Gray wrote:
>> Firstly I apologise for sending my message body as HTML, I've clearly
>> not figured out how to force Thunderbird to always send as plain text.
>
Go into the thunderturkey address book, edit the libusb-devel ent
On 2012.07.13 12:56, Toby Gray wrote:
> Firstly I apologise for sending my message body as HTML, I've clearly
> not figured out how to force Thunderbird to always send as plain text.
No worries. Text is more friendly for archiving and dumb processing, so
that's what we prefer, but we're not gonna
Firstly I apologise for sending my message body as HTML, I've clearly
not figured out how to force Thunderbird to always send as plain text.
On 12/07/12 20:59, Pete Batard wrote:
>>> 0004 - Replaces getenv() with NULL on WinCE due to it not being supported.
>> Try to change this in a good way whe
On 2012.07.12 23:28, Peter Stuge wrote:
> I tried to make clear that I have no entitlement in libusbx beyond
> freedom of speech.
There's freedom of speech, and there's trolling. IMO, you're getting
dangerously close to the second one when the opinions you feel free to
express consistently run u
Pete Batard wrote:
> I find this as both very rude and damaging, as, seeing that you are not
> endorsed as a moderator here, yet pretend to be entitled to act like
> one, it does end up sending mixed messages.
I tried to make clear that I have no entitlement in libusbx beyond
freedom of speech.
On 2012.07.12 19:31, Peter Stuge wrote:
> As Pete likes to point out I have no authority in the libusbx
> project,
Indeed. Still you seem suspiciously eager to comment as if you had,
apparently striving to do it before any of the regulars actually get a
chance to reply...
I find this as both ve
Hi Toby,
As Pete likes to point out I have no authority in the libusbx
project, so as far as libusbx is concerned I think the best
might be if you could pretend that I had never posted this
feedback on the libusbx list.
Please consider my feedback to be in the context of the libusb
project, where
18 matches
Mail list logo
