X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Fri, 17 Feb 2017 04:33:23 +0100 (CET)
X-X-Sender:	igor2 AT igor2priv
To:	"Bert Timmerman (bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
X-Debug:	to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From:	gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] RFC: edacore - should we reboot it? the EDA
	ecosystem
In-Reply-To:	<58A5F330.4090000@xs4all.nl>
Message-ID:	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1702170427470.7286@igor2priv>
References:	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1702130818300 DOT 7286 AT igor2priv> <58A5F330 DOT 4090000 AT xs4all DOT nl>
User-Agent:	Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

Hi Bert,

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Bert Timmerman (bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:

> people leave ... please do not expect that islands and landmasses will shift

I think we agree on this. My ecosystem/bridge idea is exactly that we 
leave islands alone, exactly where they are, but let people (and data) 
move.

<snip>

> The only addition I have to this write-up is about "Standardization": if we 
> state that a certain (file) format is compliant with a (defacto) standard (for 
> instance DXF, Verilog, HTML, VRML, STEP, etc.) it should be, it's *not* one of 
> the things "We are not REQUIRED to do" ... yes we are required to do so, users 
> depend on it, we can't do "almost" here ... and I really want the gcode bugs 
> in pcb squashed ... lack of free cycles is preventing me ... I have to dig 
> into gcode first, before I can tweak the exporter.


I think thre's a misunderstanding here.

I never proposed to make partial implementations of existing large 
standards.

I proposed that if we have a specific problem within a group of islands, 
the only one choice is NOT to pick an existing standard and drop that on 
the problem. I proposed that it's a totall viable alternative to make a 
new custom "standard" and follow that. My proposal especially mentioned 
the case when the existing standard is unfeasible (large, complicated, 
non-free, unaccessible, etc.) so it just doesn't happen for years, while 
we can sit down and make something that does happen by tomorrow.

I also don't propose that one way (one standard, one birdge) should 
exclude any other.

I only propose we should not abandon the idea to get things down just 
because someone else invented something before and we feel like we must 
not "reinvent" things.

Regards,

Igor2

- Raw text -