X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=FMIzFw7RVkyCYplsIkbRCdJDDOinK+dqVqczNpihAAM=; b=oLFSlMTtZs/4MFUiWKwAl1Km/r6jc+r0Tusbl3/97DhZ8uCn/NEEYyfMtShLGF86zR Zs158CMq2A4qT7peEE40j9sNxMoxb7UWsAEYI6ovHRvoKgPsIKghWa4gqHkFrf+rkScf t6axliFwgmiAaKV766826MbHD2rvqZs7mxEETdlj6hoAvubMqFRIFGNm+81xTLTkzgiY deVBylm5n7YMBcX8/I7ZCQ5ucXGW+SCN9cyIoUxZbDBceXud48JuHnRz9Tlo5xSjGjWu av2+31qx+WVKtBX7VdJzXCEoo6aL9ahtJfIgDtGYim+5C86sCd0oDJhsYoJ1b8QDrJl2 OYiA== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <508CED00.1070104@xs4all.nl> References: <2CB304B5-9587-4734-84E4-49F464744D11 AT noqsi DOT com> <6BF2E986-51EB-41E9-A4AD-8071CD00B1A1 AT jump-ing DOT de> <834283D4-0891-486E-A981-2FF20B32C615 AT noqsi DOT com> <54CAA7EE-7638-4B89-8197-111D0493F859 AT noqsi DOT com> <508CED00 DOT 1070104 AT xs4all DOT nl> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:38:34 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] The state of gEDA/gaf (Was gEDA/PCBs diversity, Was: Pin hole size) From: Evan Foss To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 Bert thank you *very* much! On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 4:29 AM, Bert Timmerman 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 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: > > > > git remote add bert git://github.com/bert/pcb.git > > git checkout -b LP699413 > > > > To add this as a remote to your local pcb repository. > > Update with: > > > > git fetch bert > > > > 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/