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=/chpp37QYYSgGEtyZ8jhwBtKPpXmPlBUqUOggAto+d8=;
        b=tAFf1p+1I/FN+ctJyrUXIuU8CcCjL/TzraoP8HMFSLqDI/y+cNmBN23xXrMG/cjzya
         5ORiBganOGjRe4l0BrB54mII9UAjB1dSt729SZGNvygG3PMRlbZW0+3NJaGUhRpfr53O
         gBltixziDT5nrLdqz/5U+sms8HZqeLFNCcVnVyrYKmpuuHpS9z8qgG8mSVaCCogBv3cD
         O5edYOQkePmHDvrz6fwxwdOPJIf4jqzHzhu6XYmCw6NE1ut95AHsp2z1e1VUtdgpJuqC
         VvN3K6XAoF0GIE3JgH3o0ZIEB7GsA1T2da1h1ORteB+JwRgbEAAive4owzdCVcwipBeh
         rGGg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.57.77 with SMTP id g13mr8148987igq.29.1413498623520; Thu,
 16 Oct 2014 15:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20141016215448.GA3822@alpha2>
References: <CAGRhJMZgn5YojUcGKR+nEj6bPWjKmff4ykg_adjKeB=89q+_gw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAOP4iL1CY7=enEfxmCn3dhr36=j_ytnSjfhYvHVC6-TV8AK=5w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAGRhJMaFnS_PWZmKAio6DKBeWx0z57uV8XjnZKwb2WmkJVGCGQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<00E6DEBC-05AB-4079-9E88-152225FF6DDE AT qux DOT com>
	<87wq80xauh DOT fsf AT hotmail DOT com>
	<CAOP4iL0WTYDc_UNmtQbencnx69t4u1X=HMDy1Y=7aM=EYW6-oA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<87siinykoy DOT fsf AT hotmail DOT com>
	<20141016215448 DOT GA3822 AT alpha2>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 14:30:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAC4O8c-MzogKCyRiRt-Gzmr1c3YJtPpOAMhQbkPTeyOdqdvsqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] SchemeIt
From: Britton Kerin <britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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 Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Ivan Stankovic <pokemon AT fly DOT srk DOT fer DOT hr> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:43:25PM -0400, Enoch wrote:
>> What I am more interested in drawing the attention to is their
>> presumably easy collaboration at schmeatics ("data") level. Geda does an
>> impressive colaboration at tools, git and friends make it easy for
>> us. Generations of talented programmers keep this project alive for
>> years... but what about collaborative creation of data, the next
>> BeagleBone like design?
>
> I'm afraid more and more designs of such complexity will probably not be
> made by using gEDA, except maybe for few people that have their own
> private forks, scripts and basically very special workflows that,
> really, should not have been necessary.
>
> Although I do not want to beat a dead horse (again), I have to say that
> gEDA simply does not address the issues of modern complex designs.
> Complex designs require much better integration and more functionality
> than is currently provided by gEDA.

Exactly what are you thinking of, besides the ability to *encapsulate*
what you have done, and *share* it?

> Now, I'm sure there are some who will jump in and say that every design
> that can be done using other EDA tools can also be done using gEDA.  And
> while I may agree for the most part, I have to ask, at what cost?
> Sure, you could conceivably build a house with only a hammer and a
> shovel, but would you really want to?
>
>> Suppose you and I work on a common design project, you move resistors
>> around, you change values, ... how am I supposed to see your changes, by
>> doing a diff on the sch or pcb ASCII files... I believe that Geda should start
>> adding tags to the sch and pcb which are related to version control.
>>
>> In short, add revision control support within gschem, within pcb, etc.
>>
>> Is this a pipe dream?
>
> I'd say it is.

So how many crazy people really do hardware design this way?  If you're working
on the same subsystem as me, and you come in and make changes like the above
without talking to me, I'm gonna be pissed.  scm is a terrible substitute
for communication even for software and doubly so for hardware, where the
coupling of all the pieces of a subsystem is usually pretty tight.  Forget
about collaboration tools designed to compensate for designer deficiencies
and worry about more fundamental capabilities, like sharable modules.

Britton