X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-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=lnyn9ZxzXUAfeYjVAMjzRVuZRH7Vw1Y3cjjHsJRynCM=; b=tRWWIZmGXelG//ZJnwOtY+mVCMhyTddKZVY5jPLFemS+m9xNkK5V7cBk/X5E+26n6g jVVdRVIxpWc4RHVst5Yr7JSx3HGIAZra1bl11tm3KTnV2HY7znDwA8VNw24IP35XGo+2 jixPBKBsDMN5stGlk6z1ZjDfI+atsA4Ff0GwzjbcZF78FshuNG/p0gf+64PkEOdpDE7S 5I/ZK611yZpPlJV3+eda8GkvCgjTeRgxTJs+vXMGgh5ehtNTZaTQD8cCmPJsTmSBINNP 5pKX/UvMoxMqJvdzIQi+ZJJmDPxPH1g1ONgWlKxmm39xbJK8uQ4Asbd6wsWFgKgAUfx1 80MA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.124.164 with SMTP id mj4mr33596181lbb.3.1435894716273; Thu, 02 Jul 2015 20:38:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150703030409.32398.qmail@stuge.se> References: <1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 03:38:36 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive? From: "Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie 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 Peter hit on a number of good points there. If we were to really measure how a piece of open source software is doing I think a less crude measure would be based on how long and how many bugs have been reported and unresolved. When was the last time any one here spotted a bug in gschem? On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > Stefan Salewski wrote: >> maybe my impression that geda/gschem usage and development is >> nearly death is wrong? > > Look, open source software development can not die! I react quite > strongly indeed to those who throw this ridiculous expression around! > > The source code is there. Anyone who wants can pick it up and make a > change. Today, tomorrow, next month and next decade. > > Development happens when it happens. If you need it sooner you get to > do it yourself or pay for it to get done by someone else. You already > know that this is the premise. You must be able to take > responsibility for your own problems, otherwise you can not benefit > from open source and should acquire a support contract from a service > provider who might benefit from open source. > > > And using alive and dead as measure of volunteer efforts makes no > sense whatsoever. It implies that there exists a single threshold > where development moves from being alive to being dead and vice > versa. That is of course, as I wrote, utterly ridiculous. > > Development happens when someone makes a change. > > I have often experienced people who measure software project > development simply by change quantity, which I can completely > understand, because it is the most trivial metric, but it is also a > really useless metric, since number of changes say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING > about whether a codebase is improving or deteriorating. > > > //Peter -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/