Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/10/28/13:39:18
Bert thank you *very* much!
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 4:29 AM, Bert Timmerman
<bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl> wrote:
> Evan Foss wrote:
>>
>> "Modernizing" the user interface would break the tool for people like
>> me who are already using it.
>>
>> If you what to help the project finish the doxygen documentation in
>> gEDA and start doing it on PCB. It is not as glamorous as the problems
>> of back annotation or 3D component modeling that seem to be recurring
>> topics here but it will help the project. It will also make the
>> project more alive and hence attractive to new developers who might
>> miss judge it as stale.
>>
>> I don't mean to be rude but I don't see this discussion leading to
>> anything at the moment. If people are going to be typing let them type
>> documentation.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Markus Hitter<mah AT jump-ing DOT de> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Am 27.10.2012 um 01:36 schrieb John Doty:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Markus Hitter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fritzing doesn't even try to be as detailed as gEDA. But Fritzing gets
>>>>> all the newbies, so in the end, Fritzing wins. Simple maths.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why is that winning? As far as I'm concerned, the tool that gets the job
>>>> done wins.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fritzing wins, because those people doing their first projects with
>>> Fritzing
>>> will never even try with gEDA. And if they do, they'll run away the same
>>> minute, because they can't even rotate an item. That simple.
>>>
>>> And yes, I've seen that many times. gEDAs awkward user interface / mouse
>>> button mapping / inconsistent behaviour is about the biggest complaint I
>>> receive when asking people to participate in projects I maintain.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A fine example of the problem is LyX, ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And because LyX made a mistake you assume gEDA inevitably has to make the
>>> same mistake? For my part, I consider gEDA developers to be more
>>> intelligent. So far I'm proven right, for example the direct schematics
>>> import, which is a step of integration, works without hobbling script
>>> users.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Who exactly is interested in the history of a tool? I use it today and
>>>>> I
>>>>> couldn't care less by whom and how it was used five years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, I *do* care about that kind of consistency. Aerospace projects
>>>> take
>>>> a long time, and I have a decade of gEDA schematics that I reuse.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Again you do the assumption modernizing the user interface would make
>>> your
>>> older designs unusable. There's no reason for this assumption. The
>>> mapping
>>> of mouse buttons is 100% independent from the file format. The file
>>> format
>>> is also 100% independent from the size of the window used for viewing it
>>> or
>>> wether this window is shared for both, gschem and pcb.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's less likely that a transcendental genius will appear who can
>>>> accomplish what I think you want step by step, fighting the architecture
>>>> and
>>>> legacy flows all the way.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Same as above. Assumptions without substance. Nobody is fighting working
>>> with legacy data.
>>>
>>> In fact, the introduction of holes in polygons has brought us
>>> compatibility
>>> with older file formats. Before, files were tagged with a 2010something
>>> version number, now designs without polygon holes are flagged with
>>> version
>>> 20070407.
>>>
>>> There you go. A new feature actually *increased* compatibility with
>>> legacy
>>> stuff.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Markus
>>>
>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
>>> http://www.jump-ing.de/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Hi Evan,
>
> I started a doxygenation effort of pcb and stashed some patches at bug
> #699413 in the pcb bug tracker.
>
> This over flooded DJs email box ;-) so I went further on without any ado:
>
> https://github.com/bert/pcb/branches
>
> To share into the fun just do:
>
> <code>
>
> git remote add bert git://github.com/bert/pcb.git
>
> git checkout -b LP699413
>
> </code>
>
> To add this as a remote to your local pcb repository.
>
> Update with:
>
> <code>
>
> git fetch bert
>
> </code>
>
> Eventually I will probably squash all the 130+ commits, in this topic
> branch, into just a couple big commits to reduce the commits in the upstream
> pcb repository.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Bert Timmerman.
--
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/
- Raw text -