ETAs for libusbx operability and first release?

[Pete Batard]

On 2012.01.30 16:01, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> That's the wrong way around! We have a release every N months, we
> decide what goes on based on that, not the other way around. _That_
> is the main problem with libusb IMO.

Well, my problem here is that I've accumulated quite a few things that 
I'd like to push, and I don't know how you guys want to prioritize them.

If you say the only thing we should worry about for future release is 
what has been presented, then it's all up to me to decide what goes in. 
As such, I can very well choose to delay libusb0/libusbK and focus on 
hotplug, or push other stuff like timestamped and toggleable logging 
first, that others people may think would be better delayed.

Then again, spending time and effort producing patches only to be met 
with "we're not ready for that yet" or "couldn't you have worked on 
feature XYZ first?" is a problem I'd like to avoid.

For instance, if you want a hotplug proposal right after the 1.0.9 
release, I can most certainly provide one. But that will push the 
libusb-win32/libusbK integration back, and it will also require Linux 
and OSX people to tend to the code where needed (it's supposed to work 
there, but some patching/cleanup may be required). If nobody is 
available to sort things up on OSX or Linux, we may end up with a 
proposal that goes nowhere or have to delay a release for a few more 
months.

This is why I think a little planning ahead to discuss what features 
should be the focus of libusbx-next, can go a long way.

Regards,

/Pete