Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/10/28/13:22:28
On Oct 28, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Ivan Stankovic wrote:
> Sarcasm aside, John, I've always appreciated your position and statements about
> the power and flexibility of gEDA over the years, but I think the above is a
> bit too much. Could you please choose a friendlier wording and specify
> what concrete plans are you worried about and why?
Well, of course, I didn't know to worry specifically that somebody would change the default attribute promotion strategy until I'd been burned by it.
>
> It would also help to be more specific about various gEDA components, such as
> being explicit about the file format, libgeda, gnetlist, gschem etc. instead of
> mentioning "gEDA" or "toolkit" everywhere.
There are really two things here: gEDA and pcb. They have separate source trees and separate development histories. They have been independent projects: pcb is the older. As I have said for years, including pcb in the gEDA project has been a major mistake. These are both worthy projects, but neither should be dependent on the other. They deserve a clean interface, but they should not be influencing each other's development.
One consequence of this unfortunate marriage is that this mailing list is dominated not by gEDA issues, but by pcb issues. That demonstrates that gEDA is a mature product, while pcb is not.
I suggest that those who propose a change to gEDA consider whether the change would be beneficial if pcb did not exist. If not, then the change is probably not a good idea. The exception is the gnetlist scripting at the interface, of course. I think the same principle applies to pcb development: pcb should stand on its own merits.
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com
- Raw text -