4 new commits in master

[Pete Batard]

On 2012.04.14 17:33, Michael Plante wrote:
> Pete Batard wrote:
>>> Oh really? What is true to other forks won't be true to libusbx
>>> because we are a "special case"?
>>> The laws of gravity don't apply to us because we're different, right?
>
> You need to justify analogies, and I just plain don't see it.

I pointed to examples of forks that are divisive (and I could add more. 
Hudson vs Jenkins, JavaScript vs JScript, that had to be reconciled to 
great effort, though not exactly Open Source, etc.) as a proof that 
forks are divisive by nature and require people to take side. To that, 
you basically answered "No - not us". And you ask me to justify further?

>>> I disagree with you with regards to being able to work
>>> with libusb,
>
> Then 1) stop promising you will

I wouldn't call looking at what the competition does and 
borrowing/stealing their ideas "working with".

Or would you consider that Pepsi and Coke are "working with" one another?

Ergo, I still haven't made any promise that I would work *with* libusb. 
On the contrary, I have pretty much clearly promised I wouldn't.

> 2) stop making it more difficult for me to for no reason other than "branding".

"more difficult for *me*". Enough said.

As I stated previously, I don't anticipate many people to be in the same 
case as you, and I certainly would not encourage them, as I see any 
attempt to participate to libusb as a waste of time when libusbx is 
there. Therefore, I am balancing what *you* would like with what I think 
will benefit users at large. And you're not exactly coming on top there.

>>> Unsubscribe or not doesn't matter.
>
> Then start a new thread, or at least post it somewhere else within the thread.  Don't reply to that point -- read in that context that was misleading.

I don't get what you mean.

>>> I already did, but you don't think things throuygh. What about the
>>> official libusb git repo? It's all that matter, because by the time a
>>> patch exists there, it has been reviewed and approved so I don't have
>>> to duplicate that work. That's where I plan to pick up patches, and
>>> nowhere else.
>
> Chasing away people who are willing to spend the time to read about the subtleties of the approval process is unwise.

As far as I know I'm chasing away the one person who seems to believe 
that libusb has a future and that participating in both libusbx and 
libusb is not a waste of their time. If I can, I'd like to avoid others 
making the same mistake.

>>>>>> Curious, I think Xiaofan indicated that he saw the need to choose a side
>>>>>> too.
>>>>
>>>> No, because you were responding to your own statement earlier, "it's highly
>>>> unlikely that contributors will waste their time submitting patches to both
>>>> projects".  You proceeded to say, "he's been feeding items back and forth,
>>>> and he's probably going to continue to do so".  Choosing sides is mere
>>>> semantics compared to the original point about the actions on patches.
>>>
>>> Notice how I used "items" and not "patches" in my statement.
>
> Fine, but my original post was about Hans, who certainly did post patches.

Which I already debunked when I stated that Hans only submitted patches 
when he thought libusbx was dead (though I cannot exactly speak for him, 
but is most logical explanation).

>>> In case you haven't noticed, it's forking that makes both projects
>>> less successful. You're trying to get a fork without the drawbacks of
>>> a fork.
>
> Let me try.

And I'm not going to prevent you from trying. But it's also not my job 
to make it easier when I see it as having a negative impact to a project 
that, as a fork prompted by irresolvable disagreement in terms of 
maintenance and direction, is meant to be independent.

>>>> And Peter, for one, will never take our side.
>>>> So we lose his expertise.
>>>
>>> Yes. And when Hans Reiser allegedly killed his wife the Linux
>>> community lost his expertise.
>
> I'm sure Peter will love the comparison.  No one is preventing me from passing messages back and forth.

No one will prevent you. For all I know Peter may already be subscribed 
to libusbx-devel, since it's open to anyone, and I don't check the 
subscribers.

The comparison is meant to be strong, because more than 2 years of 
dealing with him is leaving with absolutely no doubt that Peter is 
single handedly killing the libusb project. And due to the interest in 
this fork, I logically have to assume that I am far from being the only 
one thinking that.

>>> Peter has been a catastrophy for the maintenance of libusb, and
>>> despite requests from many individuals, he has both refused to
>>> acknowledge it and work on it.
>
> I am commenting purely on his GIVING input, not on TAKING input.

Which he will be free to do if he subscribes to libusb-devel. Nobody is 
going to prevent him from providing input anywhere if he wants to. As I 
stated, our list is opened to everyone.

> But you are throwing away the former.

As per the above, I am not.

Regards,

/Pete