X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Subject: Re: [geda-user] The state of gEDA/gaf (Was gEDA/PCBs diversity, Was: Pin hole size)
From: John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <20121028164801.GA4859@alpha2>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 11:21:58 -0600
Message-Id: <5FF7010F-BB82-41F2-8EBC-608E91E045F1@noqsi.com>
References: <CANqhZFwPNG4R1dR2X0HB+tP1JzNXUAVg55gy54Lry5E49aAQ6Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <E9D200C7-475C-4CC7-A592-5A6C14B3EA25 AT noqsi DOT com> <6BF2E986-51EB-41E9-A4AD-8071CD00B1A1 AT jump-ing DOT de> <834283D4-0891-486E-A981-2FF20B32C615 AT noqsi DOT com> <C3C35AF4-24D1-4977-9134-2C0B13473D01 AT jump-ing DOT de> <54CAA7EE-7638-4B89-8197-111D0493F859 AT noqsi DOT com> <D59D8F6D-0436-4A8D-AFC0-5124BD3031D6 AT jump-ing DOT de> <508CE947 DOT 4050408 AT xs4all DOT nl> <508D302D DOT 1030105 AT jump-ing DOT de> <D04117DE-615E-412A-833E-4ED0F1B9A620 AT noqsi DOT com> <20121028164801 DOT GA4859 AT alpha2>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id q9SHM5wD018426
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
Precedence: bulk


On Oct 28, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Ivan Stankovic wrote:

> Sarcasm aside, John, I've always appreciated your position and statements about
> the power and flexibility of gEDA over the years, but I think the above is a
> bit too much.  Could you please choose a friendlier wording and specify
> what concrete plans are you worried about and why?

Well, of course, I didn't know to worry specifically that somebody would change the default attribute promotion strategy until I'd been burned by it.


> 
> It would also help to be more specific about various gEDA components, such as
> being explicit about the file format, libgeda, gnetlist, gschem etc. instead of
> mentioning "gEDA" or "toolkit" everywhere.

There are really two things here: gEDA and pcb. They have separate source trees and separate development histories. They have been independent projects: pcb is the older. As I have said for years, including pcb in the gEDA project has been a major mistake. These are both worthy projects, but neither should be dependent on the other. They deserve a clean interface, but they should not be influencing each other's development.

One consequence of this unfortunate marriage is that this mailing list is dominated not by gEDA issues, but by pcb issues. That demonstrates that gEDA is a mature product, while pcb is not.

I suggest that those who propose a change to gEDA consider whether the change would be beneficial if pcb did not exist. If not, then the change is probably not a good idea. The exception is the gnetlist scripting at the interface, of course. I think the same principle applies to pcb development: pcb should stand on its own merits.

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