X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Injected-Via-Gmane:	http://gmane.org/
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
From:	Peter TB Brett <peter AT peter-b DOT co DOT uk>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Ugly tiny bugs
Date:	Fri, 27 Sep 2013 22:21:33 +0100
Lines:	76
Message-ID:	<87wqm20xlu.fsf@harrington.peter-b.co.uk>
References:	<1380306419 DOT 2601 DOT 5 DOT camel AT AMD64X2 DOT fritz DOT box>
	<87bo3e2go4 DOT fsf AT harrington DOT peter-b DOT co DOT uk>
	<1380312024 DOT 2601 DOT 28 DOT camel AT AMD64X2 DOT fritz DOT box>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Complaints-To:	usenet AT ger DOT gmane DOT org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host:	cpc4-oxfd23-2-0-cust628.4-3.cable.virginmedia.com
User-Agent:	Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock:	sha1:3v+DthZ1uVX2maSgfvDfCGSoEwI=
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Stefan Salewski writes:

> No. I guess for such obvious bugs that is not really useful.

Well, no, actually it is very useful.  For example, there are parts of
gschem that I don't ever use (e.g. slotting) so if I^Hsomeone broke them
even in a very obvious way, I wouldn't notice very quickly.

> Maybe nobody has time to fix it, maybe power users know how to live with
> such bugs, maybe it is really hard to fix it, maybe someone already
> fixed it, but the fix made it not in the official release.
>
> It is not a real problem for me, I am not a registered gEDA developer.
> And of course I am very busy.

If it's enough of a problem to whinge on the mailing list about it, it's
a real bug.  I'm sure several people will be able to confirm that I do,
in fact, attempt to fix bugs, when they are actually reported in a
reasonably descriptive way.  However, I'm not necessarily able to fix
every bug immediately.  Filing a bug report makes sure that there is a
record that allows me to come back to it later.

Here's a guide to how you know whether you should post a bug report:

1) I tried it and it did what I expected.
   -> Don't post a bug report.

2) I tried it and it did something, but not what I expected.  The
   behaviour did match the documentation, though.
   -> Don't report a bug unless the documented behaviour is REALLY STUPID.

3) I tried it and it did something, but not what I expected.  The
   behaviour didn't match the documentation.
   -> Post a bug report.

4) I tried it and it didn't work.
   -> Post a bug report.

5) I feel like writing a vague e-mail to the mailing list about how
   gschem is horribly broken and bad for beginners.
   -> Don't do that, post a bug report.

Basically, if it's bothering you enough to be worth writing an e-mail
about, it's worth filing a bug report.  Otherwise you're just wasting
(a) bandwidth and (b) every mailing list subscriber's time.



Onto the actual bug:

It's an artefact of the fact gschem doesn't have a real state machine.
Same underlying reason that you can crash gschem by the following
procedure: select something, begin placing a net, press "Ctrl+X".
Fixing this is in my (rather lengthy) backlog.  Please click this link
and file a $%&!ing bug report: https://bugs.launchpad.net/geda/+filebug

                                    Peter

=2D-=20
Dr Peter Brett <peter AT peter-b DOT co DOT uk>

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlJF9t0ACgkQZ7Gbq7g7vpqIUwCeNtBtiqtj1ouOzs2RdCD2uumg
s00AnA6qdVagPyxZhmBWNQfzv5YNzLsk
=IGD+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--

- Raw text -