ETAs for libusbx operability and first release?

[Segher Boessenkool]

>>> That's not going to happen.  If we pick up stuff that still needs
>>> testing, we cannot release.
>
> I would not call most of those "needs testing".

The branch is called "testing", and the branch rebases at least
some of the time.  I'm not going to merge from that, it will
become a mess.  If you want me to merge patches for our 1.0.9,
please send them now, to this mailing list.

> Most of those have been in
> Pete Batard's repo for a very long time in one form or another.  I  
> thought
> part of the problem was a differing idea of what Peter thought "needs
> testing" is and what we think "needs release" is?

I'm not going to merge whatever random stuff that hasn't had
review, and that branch is just that.  I'll certainly merge
patches that you guys consider essential for release.

> But I'll grant that
> you're probably just now seeing these for the first time,

I probably have seen most, and if not, I'll certainly not merge
them :-)

> so you may not
> realize how long most (not all) of them have been around.

Oh I do.  That does not mean we want them in this release though.

> 536e424f -- essential to build lsusb on msvc6
> c591a7cb -- nice, and only affects a few people
> 17ad642c -- essential, and only affects windows
> 8e15adcb -- essential, and only affects windows.  trivial to check.
> ca097544 -- essential, and only affects windows.  no downside.
> bb37939a -- nice, but you've personally reviewed it already and  
> essentially
> your only argument was that it was ugly.  Peter accepted it.
> fa66c932 -- nice, and only affects windows.
> e2807603 -- nice, and only affects a few people
> f6ef0fca -- essential, and only affects windows.
> c40f3df1 -- nice, and only affects a few people

[Don't give commit IDs on a branch that rebases, they *will* go
away.  Patch titles are much more useful anyway...]

I'll take whatever is Windows-only if the Windows maintainers
agree on it.  Same for every other backend.

> ("a few people" above specifically means a subset of windows, i.e.,  
> msvc6.)

Ho hum, so it has overlap with that "pu" branch.

Better tell me again what you want merged, then.

> If you want me to make you a branch with just these commits (I'll  
> pick a
> fairly vague name so Peter won't guess what I'm doing), please make  
> me a
> list of categories above that you are interested in and I will do so.

There is ONE category I care about: "stuff that we NEED for
release", i.e. pointing to the correct mailing list etc.  I
think I have that covered.

I'll blindly take whatever Windows stuff you guys want to push
through, as long as it only touches your backend.

Everything else, post the patch please?

> Please also give me a timeline.

I already said, I want to release in a week.  So merge tomorrow,
and let simmer for a bit.  Also, fix website ;-)

> This weekend is over, so hopefully next
> weekend is acceptable.  It's doubtful I can do much during the week.

Stuff that still needs work is much too late for 1.0.9; if you
still need to think about what else needs merging, it's too late
for that too.  We can have an early 1.0.10 of course (e.g. in
one or two months), do not worry about getting non-essential
stuff merged right now.


Segher