X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Envelope-From:	paubert AT iram DOT es
Date:	Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:49:33 +0200
From:	"Gabriel Paubert (paubert AT iram DOT es) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	[geda-user] Re: off-topic: daydreaming about modularization (was: Re:
	[geda-user] Buttons for automation (obligatory grab at our shared 3rd rail)
	Re: [geda-user] Antifork)
Message-ID:	<20150825144933.GA9557@visitor2.iram.es>
References:	<CAM2RGhTJ-gywb3LrkKoNKUxkwJCTsJ7vRxiLtmrXa5Mnp0331w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<DUB125-W46D6798DBF674B80F24208C6620 AT phx DOT gbl>
	<6B8DDCCF-0E84-43DC-94A3-89CE0E56F0ED AT noqsi DOT com>
	<201508242052 DOT 28189 DOT ad252 AT freeelectron DOT net>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1508250534570 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
	<3766120C-93DD-454D-B2FA-7C79B78DC86C AT noqsi DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<3766120C-93DD-454D-B2FA-7C79B78DC86C@noqsi.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Spamina-Bogosity:	Unsure
X-Spamina-Spam-Score:	-1.0 (-)
X-Spamina-Spam-Report:	Content analysis details: (-1.0 points)
	pts rule name description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
	-0.0 BAYES_40 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 20 to 40%
	[score: 0.3292]
	0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
	See
	http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
	for more information.
	[URIs: repo.hu]
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 Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 07:51:17AM -0400, John Doty wrote:
> 
> On Aug 24, 2015, at 11:56 PM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
> 
> >  The drive is low too: even with the clumsy modelling John likes to keep bashing pcb for, it works surprisingly well in practice. 
> 
> I think part of our problem is that if pcb makes sense to you, gschem does not, and vice-versa.

At least in my case, I'd say you are well over 100% wrong.

    Gabriel

- Raw text -