4 new commits in master

[Pete Batard]

On 2012.04.12 13:36, Michael Plante wrote:
> 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.

Ever tried running both KDE and Gnome? Or iPXE and gPXE?
Users of any of these projects either pick one or the other. Apart from 
a few cases, which are a minority, they don't use both.

Sorry, but most forks seem to be proving you wrong here.

>>> 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.

And what I did say is that I would pick up the patches from libusb I 
deem interesting and apply them to libusbx, so you don't have to bother 
about the above.

>>> 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.

Then clearly you shouldn't be here. You don't seem to understand what a 
fork really stands for.

>>>>>> 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?

Simple:

1. "if we thought we could work with libusb, we wouldn't have forked"
2. "Not really true" (implying "we can work with libusb", which you 
explicitly indicate further down). "The problem wasn't a lack of 
commits, but a lack of releases." (implying the only problem there is 
with libusb is a lack of releases and that apart from that it's doing a 
good job.)

> So I'll repeat more explicitly:  we(I) can 1) work
> with libusb,

Which is what I understood, and which I dispute. As long as Peter is in 
charge, I don't think we can work with libusb. And that's the reason I 
participate in a fork. I tried to work with libusb for more than 2 years 
and it went nowhere. Feel free to do what you want with regards to 
working with libusb, but I won't join you there.

>>> 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.

 From your expectation of being able to work with 2 sides of a fork, 
which you just reiterated.

>>> 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.

Actually, I'm planning on stating that I'm not going to participate to 
libusb-devel any longer, after I announce the fork there.

>>> 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.

Curious, I think Xiaofan indicated that he saw the need to choose a side 
too.

>>> 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.

I'm worrying about making libusbx successful. And branding and having 
people take side is very much part of that, whether you like it or not.

Regards,

/Pete