Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/10/28/04:30:15
Evan Foss wrote:
> "Modernizing" the user interface would break the tool for people like
> me who are already using it.
>
> If you what to help the project finish the doxygen documentation in
> gEDA and start doing it on PCB. It is not as glamorous as the problems
> of back annotation or 3D component modeling that seem to be recurring
> topics here but it will help the project. It will also make the
> project more alive and hence attractive to new developers who might
> miss judge it as stale.
>
> I don't mean to be rude but I don't see this discussion leading to
> anything at the moment. If people are going to be typing let them type
> documentation.
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Markus Hitter<mah AT jump-ing DOT de> wrote:
>
>> Am 27.10.2012 um 01:36 schrieb John Doty:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Markus Hitter wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fritzing doesn't even try to be as detailed as gEDA. But Fritzing gets
>>>> all the newbies, so in the end, Fritzing wins. Simple maths.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why is that winning? As far as I'm concerned, the tool that gets the job
>>> done wins.
>>>
>>
>> Fritzing wins, because those people doing their first projects with Fritzing
>> will never even try with gEDA. And if they do, they'll run away the same
>> minute, because they can't even rotate an item. That simple.
>>
>> And yes, I've seen that many times. gEDAs awkward user interface / mouse
>> button mapping / inconsistent behaviour is about the biggest complaint I
>> receive when asking people to participate in projects I maintain.
>>
>>
>>> A fine example of the problem is LyX, ...
>>>
>>
>> And because LyX made a mistake you assume gEDA inevitably has to make the
>> same mistake? For my part, I consider gEDA developers to be more
>> intelligent. So far I'm proven right, for example the direct schematics
>> import, which is a step of integration, works without hobbling script users.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Who exactly is interested in the history of a tool? I use it today and I
>>>> couldn't care less by whom and how it was used five years ago.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I *do* care about that kind of consistency. Aerospace projects take
>>> a long time, and I have a decade of gEDA schematics that I reuse.
>>>
>>
>> Again you do the assumption modernizing the user interface would make your
>> older designs unusable. There's no reason for this assumption. The mapping
>> of mouse buttons is 100% independent from the file format. The file format
>> is also 100% independent from the size of the window used for viewing it or
>> wether this window is shared for both, gschem and pcb.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It's less likely that a transcendental genius will appear who can
>>> accomplish what I think you want step by step, fighting the architecture and
>>> legacy flows all the way.
>>>
>>
>> Same as above. Assumptions without substance. Nobody is fighting working
>> with legacy data.
>>
>> In fact, the introduction of holes in polygons has brought us compatibility
>> with older file formats. Before, files were tagged with a 2010something
>> version number, now designs without polygon holes are flagged with version
>> 20070407.
>>
>> There you go. A new feature actually *increased* compatibility with legacy
>> stuff.
>>
>>
>>
>> Markus
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
>> http://www.jump-ing.de/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Hi Evan,
I started a doxygenation effort of pcb and stashed some patches at bug
#699413 in the pcb bug tracker.
This over flooded DJs email box ;-) so I went further on without any ado:
https://github.com/bert/pcb/branches
To share into the fun just do:
<code>
git remote add bert git://github.com/bert/pcb.git
git checkout -b LP699413
</code>
To add this as a remote to your local pcb repository.
Update with:
<code>
git fetch bert
</code>
Eventually I will probably squash all the 130+ commits, in this topic
branch, into just a couple big commits to reduce the commits in the
upstream pcb repository.
Kind regards,
Bert Timmerman.
- Raw text -