Mail Archives: geda-user/2017/02/12/05:04:55
On Sun, 12 Feb 2017, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
> just watched your 2016 FOSDEM talk - funny thing is that we are actually
> doing a lot of things in pcb-rnd that you were talking about in that
> presentation about how EDA tools should cooperate. I'd say there's a 3/4
> match and only 1/4 mismatch (or disagreement) between what we are
> practically doing and what you described there.
Yeah, I noticed that, too. I think that if all people in the project
spelled out their intentions in a high-level way, we would find that they
aren't very different at all.
The problem is that we waste a lot of time and energy on bike shed issues.
When people see that someone addressed an issue which they themselves want
solved, too, but they would've solved them in another way, then they're
trying to make that solution go away, either by ignoring it or, if that
doesn't work, by attacking it.
Take for example the experimental branch I posted some time ago which
implements some netlister features which have been on the wishlist for
quite some time: working buses, parametric subschematics, and customizable
power symbols without a trailing ":1". For every one of these features,
people have criticized me for not implementing it their own way: for
buses, everyone had their own idea about numbering pins, someone preferred
to use simple net objects instead of buses, and someone didn't like the
idea of working buses at all. For parametric subschematics, we disagreed
about which parameter name and separator character to use. And even about
the trailing ":1", which I had expected to be really non-controversial,
there has been an argument yesterday.
So I basically have the options to either merge my patches even though
there are people opposing them, or to not merge them and not have the
features in gEDA/gaf.
> During the past few days, just before this thread happened, I was
> thinking about this. I called it "FOS EDA ecosystem".
Yes, that's my idea, too.
- Raw text -