delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/07/09/13:45:47

X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 19:51:54 +0200 (CEST)
X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv
To: "Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
X-Debug: to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From: gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Repository Management was Re: developer
excitement?
In-Reply-To: <CAM2RGhR3+FdR4PXTKa5CvSEAdcR=ifX_SgCPgS7NatCA14P9zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1507091944210.6924@igor2priv>
References: <CAM2RGhR3+FdR4PXTKa5CvSEAdcR=ifX_SgCPgS7NatCA14P9zQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com


On Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:

>> This is the death spiral gEDA is stuck in.  Main line development is so slow
>> that (essentially) private forks are more attractive, which in turn slows
>> development more, etc.
>
> To be fair a lot of people were contributing stuff that was really not
> very cleanly done. The developers should have asked them to make it
> less hairy but there was never a nice way to say it nicely.

There's another side of the coin. If you have a largeish code base with 
totally incosistent identation, requiring basically anything about 
indentation from rare contributors will not make the code look better but 
will drive contributors away.

The story is totally different if you take the code first and clean it up 
on this aspect and _then_ make requirements.

It's a random example only, but I think it demonstrates my point. If 
there's no clear roadmap and development is slow and random, 
(actively or passively) refusing patches because of hairiness is probably 
worse than just include (almost) anything. I don't know much about gschem, 
I am mostly talking about PCB here.

Btw, this problem is pretty irrelevant by now: it was a problem 
many years ago. Nowdays the major problem, as far as I understand, is that 
there's literally noone who even decides about patches.

Regards,

Igor2


- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019