X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:58:15 -0400
Message-Id: <201509112058.t8BKwF3b013774@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <E872F1BC-8FA7-449E-BA6D-5841AC79A465@noqsi.com> (message from
	John Doty on Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:35:59 -0600)
Subject: Re: [geda-user] About reinventing the wheel, and how to avoid it
References: <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1509111150410 DOT 2482 AT lichen> <B94E2C24-8B63-46FC-A551-9E4B14B817C9 AT noqsi DOT com> <201509111624 DOT t8BGOPYV000685 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <F24E14C9-8427-4688-A27A-1EBE0F669995 AT noqsi DOT com> <201509111732 DOT t8BHWnF7005271 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <960028A6-F16B-4276-B838-E9F0D2959A6F AT noqsi DOT com> <55F32375 DOT 2020505 AT ecosensory DOT com> <FC9C2933-89CE-44FD-A9EE-CA2721405ACE AT noqsi DOT com> <201509111941 DOT t8BJfqWl010427 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <D3D5A923-FAF9-4665-A0DB-A8D6A8BEA5A3 AT noqsi DOT com> <CA+uY=MS5ZOTHXDe9taav+0tCiZOqhtAJU2KO-xyRA3SrQVvLNw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <201509112020 DOT t8BKKBgI012564 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <E872F1BC-8FA7-449E-BA6D-5841AC79A465 AT noqsi DOT com>
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


> And you don't understand that this is a cause for worry for users
> who have actual jobs that need to get done?

Of course I understand, and of course I worry.  Such changes shouldn't
be taken lightly, but that doesn't mean they should never be changed
either.

Your position is very one-sided - you think nothing should change that
effects existing users.  While that's a valid position for you, it's
not a valid position on which to base development.  This isn't a
problem specific to gEDA either, EVERY software package update brings
risks.  You, as a user, can choose whether to upgrade or not.  We, as
developers, can choose to support you or not.  If we find something
that needs to be changed, that breaks one user but opens the way to
major new functionality that would benefit lots of users, we would be
hard pressed to justify not making the needed change.

Your position is also weakened by the fact that this is Free Software.
You have the right to make a copy of the code, modify it (or not) as
you wish, use it as you wish, and share it with others.  Given that
you - the "one user" in this case - has a workaround (don't upgrade),
the developers are more likely to decide in favor of the needed change.

Your position is further weaked by the fact that we are *volunteers*.
Our personal reasons for contributing do not always align with yours.
While we like to consider ourselves philanthropic, most of us work on
this software for selfish personal reasons.  If our direction affects
your paycheck, keep in mind that it does not affect *ours* (or if it
does, not in the same way).  If you don't have a support contract with
someone, you're avenues for redress are limited to cooperative ones
that others will accept.  We're certainly willing to cooperate for the
greater good, but telling us we have to do something or *you* don't
get paid, won't endear us to do it.

So yes, I worry.  We try to solve the most problems for the most
people.  Sometimes you're not one of the people.