4 new commits in master

[Michael Plante]

Pete Batard wrote:
>> Well, I think you are misunderstanding the intent of a fork is if you
>> don't realize that it very much *requires* people to take side.

A fork doesn't require anyone to take a side.  I can install both on my
system and link statically, for example, though I probably won't.


>> consider the fork as benign as you seem to be considering it
>> ("Well, I'll just contribute to both") then libusbx is clearly not going
>> to go anywhere.

libusbx is going somewhere because it has releases and most people don't
pull from git.


>> By wanting to contribute to libusb, you're basically saying that you
>> think that Peter is doing a good enough job, which very much implies
>> that you basically don't see a reason for the fork.

I said no such thing.  By wanting to contribute to libusb, I want to make
sure it diverges as little as possible so I can continue to pull its patches
into libusbx.  What I did say is that Peter is still committing, and I will
take advantage of that.


>> Once again, a fork is no benign matter, and that's why it has taken so
>> long to get one on the rails. You don't participate in a fork if you
>> still think the original project has a future.
>>
>> We forked because we thought that libusb was going nowhere. And the
>> assumption is that everybody on the fork will think the same. If not,
>> then I would kindly ask people who are uncertain about which side they
>> should take to leave this project and go back to libusb, because
>> otherwise I don't see how they're going to help make sure libusbx is
>> successful.

And I would kindly ask you rethink this, as it makes absolutely no sense to
me.




>> >>> If we thought we could still work within
>> >>> the frame of libusb, we wouldn't have forked.
>> >
>> > Not really true.  The problem wasn't a lack of commits, but a lack of
>> > releases.
>>
>> So releases don't matter? By all means, please go back to libusb if you
>> think that is the case, because it seems you believe that libusb is
>> doing fine then.

Where on earth did you get that?  How do you go from "lack of releases is a
problem" to "releases don't matter"?  Huh?  That's the exact opposite of
what I said, and in direct response to it, so I can only assume you were in
a hurry and misread it?  So I'll repeat more explicitly:  we(I) can 1) work
with libusb, 2) work with libusbx, and 3) releases matter.




>> And I think you don't understand how a fork is supposed to work.
>> You choose between KDE or Gnome. You don't contribute to both and hope
>> they will merge back...

I have never stated an expectation of them merging.  I don't know where
you're pulling that from.



>> It seems to me you are indecisive about which of libusb and libusbx you
>> should pick. And that's the actual source of your problem. If you
>> embraced one and ditched the other, this whole renaming of the project
>> files wouldn't matter to you one bit.

That conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.  It would still matter,
for the very reason I stated in the first email:  the ability to easily
perform differences, which you want to make difficult for a lousy reason.
Unless by ditching you mean unsubscribing, which even you seem unwilling to
do.



>> Except this occurred when Hans thought libusbx was dead, since Segher
>> was MIA. As long as libusbx is moving, I very much doubt that Hans will
>> spend much time feeding back patches to libusb. Bad counterexample.

I would wait and see what Hans says.  He got far more feedback from Peter
than he did from anyone here, and may see value in that (or may not).


>> Xiaofan would have been a better example,

I don't care who you use for the counterexample; you're still disproving
your own original point.



>> Branding is only one part. Ensuring that people take sides, so that our
>> project strives is another.

The merit of releases is enough to put you over top; stop worrying about
taking sides and branding.


Regards,
Michael