ETAs for libusbx operability and first release?

[Pete Batard]

On 2012.02.20 16:37, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> The consensus was what you had in pu (proposed update),
>
> I had nothing in there, it was plain libusb.git .

Yup, which was our starting point.

>> which was based on the then current git.libusb.org, plus what
>> specifically asked I identified as needed on top of pu, which I did
>> provide to you right away at [1],
>
> You had a git tree with some mswindows patches. I couldn't apply
> those as-is, since I would need to fix the commit messages.

OK, then please let me know if you don't like a commit messages and what 
you'd prefer seeing instead when that's the case.
Not much I can work on otherwise...

> When
> I finally got myself to do that a few days later (I do not like
> work, as I said before ;-) ), your tree was changed. So I dropped
> it.

Which is weird, since the 5 Windows commits + Sean's patches + Xiaofan's 
patch should have been in there right from the start. I especially don't 
remember having missed a push or something, and fixing it a few days 
later, which is the one explanation I would see for a modified tree.

>> plus whatever you may subsequently want to add on your own (or
>> requested). As far as I am aware, since I did pick the patches from
>> Sean and Xiaofan that we identified on this list as "should have",
>
> You shouldn't do that.

Well, these were discussed on the list as something we wanted to have 
when I was in the process of adding the Windows ones. Knowing that you 
were about to pick commits from my tree, I was trying to save you time.

>> there wasn't anything more that was identified as needed on the
>> mailing-list than what I provided in my pu branch.
>>
>> But for some reason, you appear to have missed some of my pu commits,
>> since you re-did the OS-X patches from Xiaofan, whereas I had already
>> added them (after fixing).
>
> No I didn't. What tree are you looking at?

I'm referring to your mail from 2012.02.01, which was a follow up on 
Xiaofan's proposed patch:

On 2012.02.01 04:06, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
 >> The following patch is also needed to fix the Example build issues under
 >> Mac OS X.
 >
 > You included the same patch twice, both times mangled (but in
 > different ways).
 >
 > The patch does two unrelated things, should really be two patches.
 >
 > I'll cook something up.

Since I had provided you with a link to my pu branch, which included an 
unmangled version of the aforementioned patch, I concluded you hadn't 
looked at my pu repo yet. I was tempted to ask you if you had, but 
decided against it since you indicated you wanted to split the patch 
anyway and you couldn't fail to see those once you started picking the 
Windows patches.

> I'll go through whatever is on your branch now.

Thanks.

> $ git fetch pete
> error: The requested URL returned error: 403 while accessing
> http://github.com/pbatard/libusbx/info/refs
>
> Huh.

That's because the URL I provided was a link to the webgit repo, not git 
itself. Most webgits provide git URIs (often giving the choice between 
git or http), and when communicating on a mailing list, where not all 
people are assumed to be wanting to actually clone a repo to see what's 
in there, I prefer providing a webgit URL. This way, anybody can easily 
browse commits and check that they look OK.

At last, now I understand what the problem was.
But again, if you think that something is off with regards to data that 
I provided, let me know.

> Changing it to use git:// seems to work though (but it cannot clone
> from that! That is, when I added that remote it couldn't. Now it
> works. Did github change something? The https:// doesn't work
> either, invalid certificate).

You have to make sure that, when you pick the URI from github, you use 
the read-only one. git://github.com/pbatard/libusbx.git is the one you 
are after. The other 2 are for rw.

> Anyway. I can access your repo again now, I'll fix things up.

Good. If there's anything you want, just ask.

Regards,

/Pete