X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=o0xqtkxN1B5tP1WGUk7dK5ud0n2kiFVNEFP6IgzRYCs=;
	b=hh5RjGSmx7LZfyCZDCJ6/xwOdqW9yZFRRc1kY2dJR0H/Ug38Fyw5XVvRFpoBxVuvZB
	rJPu138DGw1Ewa2BBDBpm3A7E+tXqZE6awihvtl+bvAdYGwfZh3+Krlkzd+6fTYpnZty
	d2Od8pnyCXBDV9AEfAVOHWtfJhSZP/Ki8COoMy01yNZayzBrGtQ5HKNp9hD+H7AekbKJ
	qmy318NQxhdhSD3amxvPgL6FlfsOp63czae/yqM6d0YK8mhxiVzHoDsEnM0HiH1vR29o
	A1OX5J7DTOs2BJZ1s72lRXXzpKIpNEAcX4Q3Z829uiWHjpBpMSaXpF2uZ16gCmEHiIRA
	HAfQ==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.112.212.9 with SMTP id ng9mr1373165lbc.57.1436228616235;
	Mon, 06 Jul 2015 17:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<CAM2RGhQfPO31-1Uyc3kC7w286r0VD7c41UZEZcyYquzknCxbsQ@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
	<20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
	<CAFC5WMoa2-z6bNca_bQN+jmMR260UBmoJQybUzH=L2TrBpzNNA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<1436006726 DOT 677 DOT 13 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
	<20150706200609 DOT GD24178 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<CAC4O8c9f0pLsLu_dyuO5ggh7RmHY1vAA=UUhk9AE0JYZb4mhBQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhQfPO31-1Uyc3kC7w286r0VD7c41UZEZcyYquzknCxbsQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Tue, 7 Jul 2015 00:23:36 +0000
Message-ID:	<CAM2RGhR-KP-4Fdkr9he1Mq_oeqSi+MO1+UhdVksROzyDLy2TwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
From:	"Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
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

John, So then why do people fight to keep gEDA using Scheme? I am not
saying we should remove it but pushing development on top of it seems
backwards.

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Evan Foss <evanfoss AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> I am not a contributor as yet but I would appreciate anyone who
> removes some of the bogosity of this list.
> http://ljh4timm.home.xs4all.nl/gaf/dox_libgeda/todo.html
>
> Granted most of this is kind of self explanatory but there are parts
> that are not so obvious. If no one else does it I probably will
> eventually.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Britton Kerin
> (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]
> <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com)
>> [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 12:45:26PM +0200, Stefan Salewski wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> I know that gEDA documentation is verbose and ugly -- but no one will
>>> Stefan,
>>> If you think some part of the documentation is ugly, please file a bug
>>> report on this adding the info you want to see changed/added/... or
>>> do this here. We certainly lack people who could read and edit the
>>> documentation we have or submit constructive changes to apply.
>>
>> I doubt it's worth bothering.  I tried years ago and was told to go away.
>> They like the docs the way they are, complete with wordy descriptions
>> of self and bad instructions on how to use git.
>>
>> Britton
>
>
>
> --
> Home
> http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
> Work
> http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Britton Kerin
> (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]
> <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com)
>> [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 12:45:26PM +0200, Stefan Salewski wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> I know that gEDA documentation is verbose and ugly -- but no one will
>>> Stefan,
>>> If you think some part of the documentation is ugly, please file a bug
>>> report on this adding the info you want to see changed/added/... or
>>> do this here. We certainly lack people who could read and edit the
>>> documentation we have or submit constructive changes to apply.
>>
>> I doubt it's worth bothering.  I tried years ago and was told to go away.
>> They like the docs the way they are, complete with wordy descriptions
>> of self and bad instructions on how to use git.
>>
>> Britton
>
>
>
> --
> Home
> http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
> Work
> http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/



-- 
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/

- Raw text -