X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
From:	geda AT psjt DOT org (Stephan =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6ttcher?=)
To:	John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
Cc:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] The nature of gEDA users
References:	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1601180756390 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1601260416150 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv>
	<56A751EC DOT 8030402 AT iae DOT nl>
	<20160126124701 DOT 0d061912c7e078ced9d4e6cb AT gmail DOT com>
	<CANEvwqgs3YFnt7m8mA1DN6X2KdWbyr4zpXCVH321vDo1f7CyxA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201601261804 DOT u0QI4KEQ009550 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<E7D351BF-5BBB-41AC-B996-D5E27079A82C AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAC4O8c-ZyNnCzCDHXkYYabSD4fG8vf+CKmhMycNJujGMPKzQDQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<s6nr3h49hrq DOT fsf AT blaulicht DOT dmz DOT brux>
	<DDB07351-7C94-4B5C-99FA-83750CD4592A AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAC4O8c9RDJc17XGo-H6DuN5h76RKhQmRNGpcn3DKBKUBP=PuCg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<s6nwpqvfp2n DOT fsf AT blaulicht DOT dmz DOT brux>
	<CAC4O8c_RnsJRtDxJ-7Bqemt=m2m3ackzkrTiFPSCAhobKQveyA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<s6npowmdciz DOT fsf AT blaulicht DOT dmz DOT brux>
	<EE023D32-78AF-4F7B-A866-69DDF3A3B155 AT noqsi DOT com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:27:31 +0100
In-Reply-To:	<EE023D32-78AF-4F7B-A866-69DDF3A3B155@noqsi.com> (John Doty's
	message of "Wed, 27 Jan 2016 13:07:42 -0700")
Message-ID:	<s6n60yedaz0.fsf@blaulicht.dmz.brux>
User-Agent:	Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id u0RKRrso021258
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 Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> writes:

> On Jan 27, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Stephan Böttcher <geda AT psjt DOT org> wrote:
>
>> The aim should be to change PCB in small incremental steps.
>
> That’s the Ptolemaic approach: adding epicycles. But perhaps the
> Keplerian approach of getting the fundamentals right would be better.

IOW, write a new program vs evolving the exiting one.  

If we agree on a direction, with some clear idea where we want to go, it
may just be easier to go in little steps, as time permits.

> John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
> http://www.noqsi.com/
> jpd AT noqsi DOT com
>
>

-- 
Stephan

- Raw text -