From: Pete B. <pb...@gm...> - 2011-02-28 14:50:18
|
On 2011.02.28 05:32, Peter Stuge wrote: >> Why would Nokia do so when Peter explicitly told them that, as long >> as Windows wasn't sorted, hotplug would have to wait? > > Maybe if they wanted to try to influence priorities, by adding > resources to the project. Maybe they considered it, then considered that a good indication of the fate of any further hp proposal would be to observe what happened to the Windows integration, and how quickly things could get resolved there, which lead them to decide it wasn't worth adding resources when they would have to wait months on maintainers. >> rushing the removal of HID > > No news that I don't like the emulation idea. The important word there is "rush". It is a rushed proposal, no matter how you look at it. And it was done without any input from the actual backend developer. I must say, it is quite fascinating, really, to see how your principal argument against RERO always seems to have been that it could open the door for rushed developments and instability, yet the whole thing gets thrown to the wind as soon as you think you're not going to get the "clean" implementation of libusb you wished for, for 1.0.9. >> whether you want to believe it or not, I actually tried to use git >> features like rebase, cherry picking, etc, and found that they >> didn't work for me (but feel free to FUD all you want there), > > Never doubted this. The only thing I doubt is that more eyes on the > problems that you encountered would not have allowed them to be > solved. As I said, FUD. > I keep promoting Git because I am still convinced that > it could save you time overall. And my actual experience has convinced me otherwise. I'll probably try it again at some stage, but after we've done with trying to bridge the gap with -pbatard. >>>> months of potential conflicts >>> >>> Only since you don't want to take advantage of git. >> >> Only since you don't want to take advantage of RERO. Great. Now what? > > Hm? I was saying that I think you could avoid merge conflicts by > using a particular workflow. And I'm saying the exact same thing, by using the RERO workflow for maintenance work. The conflicts wouldn't be there in the first place if we were RERO. Heck, if libusb was RERO, you would have had a closer look at HID one year ago, because we would all have to do so for release, and therefore, if you presented a case for HID removal that was accepted at that time, it wouldn't have had to be something rushed at the last minute. RERO would have helped achieve the goal you wanted, and kept everybody happy (because our users wouldn't have had 12 months to start using HID before finding out it was meant to be removed), as well as avoided requests and debate for HID on OS-X. Yet, despite continued evidence, you still don't seem to want to consider that RERO could be helpful, since, yet again, you've just been ignoring similar advice (given by other people than me) with regards to keeping a strerror in 1.0.9, for the sake of "cleanliness" and not having something flagged as "experimental" (hint: removing strerror has very little to do with "safety"). Ever heard of post mortem? Good way to find out how one's approach fared, and try to take corrective action if needed. >> If it's acceptable to feed patches to the mailing list again, > > It can never be unacceptable to send patches. Quite the contrary. Then please don't go saying, when people send patches in "I think it's a little too early" and point to stuff that needs to be completed before review can start on a patch. >> I'm not complaining that Peter doesn't do his job. I am complaining >> that, as far as I am concerned, he is doing a _bad_ job, > .. >> Therefore I don't see it as a matter of making it easier on him, >> but it's a matter of making him change his approach to maintenance, > .. >> Everything is not black or white. > > Yep. Except, if you want evidence of your doing what I think is a very detrimental job to libusb and/or the Windows integration process, you just have to ask. I have some. I am not saying "Peter is doing a bad job", and stopping there. I am saying "Based on the evidence I have accumulated over the past year, Peter appears to be doing a bad job". Since you are now an official maintainer, where failures are of even greater consequences, and since we haven't seen much of any improvements with regards to moving libusb forward, I think you might want to at least consider changing your approach, especially as people point to you, time and time again, how it doesn't seem to work for the best. Regards, /Pete |