X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 05:36:38 +0200 (CEST)
X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Debug: to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From: gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject: Re: [geda-user] GTK3, Glade interface designer (router, auto?)
In-Reply-To: <mv4k4c$tip$1@ger.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1510080504490.7137@igor2priv>
References: <20151003210701 DOT de392b925f54dadb0a5fedd8 AT gmail DOT com> <CAC4O8c_g7e562Gaotrbi6gLfjP6cJU1ys=MtEkDE7bSh4F9dfg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <1443975731 DOT 671 DOT 52 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <20151004191717 DOT bf8223417541a9306bfbd9ea AT gmail DOT com>
 <CAC4O8c9Bi5HJfcW6wUgm_+4O2gs4vDdBMbS2hF_0dCqnBuJahQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <1443997480 DOT 2068 DOT 32 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <CAC4O8c-bnGky=Nab59-pOTJkB8Q9Tc5t5hqE+dnEF-777hUjMg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <1444070851 DOT 1014 DOT 20 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <muv4ua$hat$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org>
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1510060356440 DOT 7137 AT igor2priv> <56133047 DOT 7030402 AT neurotica DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1510060433080 DOT 7137 AT igor2priv> <56133CC4 DOT 7000306 AT neurotica DOT com> <56137585 DOT 2030004 AT jump-ing DOT de> <CAM2RGhRZoQSJ-kUQfBTngGktreLbrM6=gbr=-+cUO4hx=2RavA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <201510061806 DOT t96I6tUG026305 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <56142095 DOT 8030800 AT jump-ing DOT de> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1510070535130 DOT 7137 AT igor2priv> <mv2u4p$7a2$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1510071314110.7137! @igor2priv> <mv4k4c$tip$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
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, 8 Oct 2015, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:

> gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>
>>> Well, seen from a distance, this is just what Markus wrote. You did
>>> not feel like joining the "official geda team". You sure have your
>>> reasons. And you surely are not alone. There is no need to feel
>>> insulted.
>>
>> Nope, he literally wrote: "don't want to join anybody"
>
> The context was the geda main-line-developer-community (for lack of a
> better word). Quotes taken out of context have a tendency to sound
> differently. I can understand how you took the sentence as an attack.

I think it is you who get the context wrong. The funny thing is, that he 
brought up my name out of the blue in that context only for a personal 
attack. Read that whole mail again. Also read his answer to my answer 
which again assures it was indeed a personal attack.

> But maybe you can likewise see that Markus may have referred to main
> line development. While he certainly did not express gratitude,

His answer would have been "sorry, I used the wrong words, I meant you 
didn't want to join [my team] / [official geda team]". Please read the 
thread again, his answer made it clear it was a personal attack and my 
interpretation was right.

Anyway, I'll stop this thing here, as I'm pretty sure we won't agree. At 
the end of the day, it doesn't really matter...

>
>>> While you technically forked the code. You still did not go all the
>>> way. That would have included complete separation of website,
>>> communication
>>
>> I do have a completly separate website. I did publish the URL.
>
> The page at
> 	http://repo.hu/projects/pcb-rnd/
> is a collection of diffs to main line pcb. A website for a completely
> forked project would focus on the project itself, not purely on the
> diffs to its parent. No offense, just a diagnosis.

The project is a collection of diffs to an old version of the mainline 
pcb. The page itself does not contain patches, but documentation on the 
patches.

I do not know what exactly you expect, should I copy the user 
documentation of the parts that are the same in both mainline and my fork? 
If so, why is it bad if they can be simply found at the mainine's web 
page? Or a fork is a fork only if it changes at least 2/3 of the code?

>
>
>> I do not mess with anyone. Since pcb-rnd is compatible with pcb, I
>> regard it as a relative of the geda effort and I think the geda-user
>> list is appropriate place to discuss it.
>
> Whatever the reason, this is not complete separation as a complete
> fork would have it. Again, no offense, just a diagnosis. A semi-, or
> four-fifths-fork is not inherently better or worse than a full one.

So a complete fork has to copy the page of the original project and never 
link or refer to it? Or should it try to change all code, just to make the 
volume of differences bigger? Or should it totally rewrite all 
documentation but can keep most of the code?

Sorry, I really don't get what a proper fork means for you.

Is gedahead a proper fork in your opinion? If so, what exactly makes it 
proper and how does pcb-rnd lack that thing?

>
>>> This sends ambiguous messages. But it is totally ok, too. Just
>>> accept that
>>
>> Ambiguous message like what? I tried to make my intentions clear, if
>> you still have doubts, feel free to ask.
>
> Ambiguous as in:
> 	"I do not want to cooperate but I do want to cooperate."

I've written this down many times, but let's do it again: I generally want 
to cooperate when it does work. When it does not work between me and a 
specific team/project, I either try to change the things that make the 
cooperation non-working for me or I can not join the given effort. In case 
of pcb this has happened. I disagree with many little details about how 
the project is run (management-wise, on some technical details like VCS, 
goals and directions of the projects, etc).

I first shared my concerns on the list, and I saw change to the 
directions I find good are impossible. It's fine, it's the decision of 
the project. From then on, I had three ways to deal with it:

1. Lean back and be an user in the consumer sense. When series of bad 
(for me) improvements were added, I tried to complain on the list but when 
the consensus was sort of "wontfix", I just stuck with an older version 
that actually worked.

2. Try to join the project anyway - I actually did submit some real minor 
patches at some point, but because of the differences mentioned above I 
got demotivated very fast and unintentionally falled back to 1. Before 
people start to bring up names: it's nobody's fault, the project takes one 
direction and I prefer another.

3. Fork the project and run the fork in the way I think is best.


Given the actual choices, after trying all three, I think what I am doing 
is cooperation. There are more ways than one to cooperate. Joining the 
mainline is only one; joining gedahead is another one. Implementing 
something from scratch (e.g. Peted) is another one. And forking the 
existing stuff publicly is one too. It can have benefits for the mainline 
and the community. I implement features people can look at, evaluate and 
try. If similar features are needed in mainline PCB you had a prototype 
for free whether you chose to take the code 1:1 or implement it in a 
totally different way or use pcb-rnd to learn the given feature is a bad 
idea and should not be implemented in mainline.

I hope this clears any ambiguousity about my intentions. If not, just ask.

Regards,

Igor2