X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-TCPREMOTEIP: 207.224.51.38 X-Authenticated-UID: jpd AT noqsi DOT com Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_38DE8373-FBD7-4804-9975-EA3B445DA42E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: [geda-user] Project leadership X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: John Doty In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 21:59:13 -0700 Message-Id: References: <43CC8F96-6452-40FA-9DFB-E0983721C19C AT noqsi DOT com> To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) 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 --Apple-Mail=_38DE8373-FBD7-4804-9975-EA3B445DA42E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Dec 28, 2015, at 8:29 PM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Mon, 28 Dec 2015, John Doty wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> On Dec 28, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Marvin Dickens (mpdickens AT gmail DOT com) = [via >> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: >>=20 >> Currently, badly needed development rarely occurs because those >> people who are capable do not contribute because they are put off >> by a few users who want NOTHING to change because it does not >> fit their personal work flow. >>=20 >>=20 >> There are really two projects here: The original gEDA (now = confusingly >> called geda-gaf), and pcb. I think everyone agrees that pcb needs a = lot of >> work. On the other hand, geda-gaf is matiure, effective, and easy to = extend >=20 > I know this will not be productive or encouraging, but... >=20 > For a long time I was hacking PCB's source and did not check geda-gaf = sources. You led me believe geda-gaf sources are much better organized, = and the code much better designed than PCBs. >=20 > When I worked on back annotation, I finally had to add some code in = gschem and libgeda. I think adding code to libgeda is =93fighting the paradigm=94, a last = resort when a new tool or script can=92t do the job. Annotation is a = separate operation from schematic drawing and deserves a separate tool. > It was a big dissapointment. PCB code has its own shortcomings too, = but gschem is far from being perfect either. If you ask me, _both_ need = a lot of work. I very rarely find that I can=92t encode what I need in a .sch file, = even things way outside the box like makefiles. But pcb can=92t even = *represent* simple things like blind vias. >=20 >> with scripting. Pcb development requires a great deal of = collaboration. >> Geda-gaf development mostly does not, as anybody can write and = publish a >> script. >=20 > False. I am coding/maintaining pcb-rnd alone and it does work - in the = sense that I do get the features and bugfixes I wanted to have. When I = did the back annotation's gschem part, things went much slower. If i had = to pick, I'd say pcb is easier to hack alone than gschem. >=20 > As you don't code PCB and you don't even use it, I don't think you are = in a good position in comparing them like that. You can, of course, just = noone should take your words seriously. >=20 >> There would be much less controversy if these projects were = separated. They >> represent radically different development patterns: conflating them = causes >> much confusion and strife. >=20 > As an user of _both_ gschem and pcb, as a programmer who has alreay = hacked both code, I beg to differ. The projects are separate enough. >=20 > Admitting that a very common (if not the most common) flow is = gschem->pcb is not a bad thing. I don=92t disagree. I just want to keep them separate. > Even if you will write at least 20 mails a month about that your flow = does not include PCB. >=20 > Having some scripts and tools for this flow is not any worse than = having tools an scripts for other flows. >=20 > Having a common mailing list or homepage or other infrastructure is = not harmful either. Anyone can use gschem without pcb and can use pcb = without gschem. It's only you who try to change PCB-related traffic I often can=92t tell what the author intends. > into "don't change gschem" threads. Other than this it's usually = pretty clear when we are talking about gschem or pcb. >=20 > About how perfect gschem is=85 It=92s not perfect. But it=92s capable and flexible when you use its = capabilities rather than fighting it. >=20 > My personal opinion, especially after actually hacking the code for = back annotation, is that there are design errors in the very core of = gschem. While I find that a few lines of Scheme or AWK can work wonders. I think = you=92re just doing things the hard way. > A few smallish things that makes life harder in probably most flows, = makes essential UI features impossible to implement. They are historical = decisions and are embedded so deep that it's unlikely they'd ever = change. > I don't want to go into details, because this mail already can cause = 30 megabytes of flamewar. Oh, the UI is klunky. And yes, it would have to be a new tool to fix it. = But I don=92t let the klunky UI bother me. It doesn=92t significantly = get in the way. >=20 >=20 > The well-praised sch format: it's uncomfortable to use with a text = editor. It's 1000x better than a binary format (or a hex dump), and I do = have my ow set of awk/sed scripts, and it's easy to parse by programs = (but that's true for tons of other formats too). But if i have to change = the footprint of R1 from 1206 to 0805 with a text editor, it's just a = PITA. But we have other tools for *that*. I don=92t often use an *interactive* = text editor on .sch files, but their friendliness to sed and AWK can be = handy. > I'm not an xml fanboy and I really don't like the overhead of JSON or = the magic -- =3D=3D ''' marks of wiki/yaml... But really, any of these = would have been more text-editor-friendly. This is a question of = personal preference, but just that you repeat twice a weak that the sch = format is perfect and is better than anything else doesn't change this. There are 10000 things that are easy with shell one-liners on .sch = files. Find every page containing a discrete transistor with =93grep = refdes=3DQ *.sch=94. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ jpd AT noqsi DOT com --Apple-Mail=_38DE8373-FBD7-4804-9975-EA3B445DA42E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWghMiAAoJEF1Aj/0UKykROQ8P/0VBv4vj2wVtmCdntDrwijMr AHLhjZYzZvpSlQ7vl9HXL9ytCCirJP8q81xEQBSLJoxOdjP7/ZR0rLxgfOhB7ev6 nr9F1skR3eLMSP6ki5WVsX8Y+MZyLJ69rBWJMyJ1GecuwjUj3EjJQtP6yQq39Goi +Y6nLwZQhWNreUFCYr891t9RyVg+BSpyzwbTlyoaZjL4osHHWJ5BqAfdJ3ZNUAQ1 Jsv/m2yo22xJk+DB813fvNOhhm6Q6vT8o6IhB8HCIxXnX+NmfNaNu1heA+ryDiIk XZr6qD+9a7UBtNMp0WtxkWdp641DM917A8/FkbG2ArCpJM/T3uvgshyNgJ2mhmKF LO0irszaBWAOi9NhT1QMkUhwIWAHL+1d1pe8kuukrGj0pI1vZauVai6caMPBrvGr xTKjMlzcbppGd/ozMnjXrbTQFh2UNPhujiM0y7uMAJiBNC+zoGHI7wD05fWJ8YcM ISBccVLs35JymL5Bo4N4L7OzmV3/OMNXlTZfDatfNUtn//6iH9fTiJ1R82GEDGkI /1y6aAUt/aFPP7JKulR8FTurXkeohwpH4u5P7YQDuVhgAe8Rwsh5tMhNhiR1r+un wBCwCaKt0GaDoAl1CwISeG1kTg/apD6xvBjrXimXklY4labWZuxoYqAjXievP7dR 5KYu7KjIYkCu+mP5A246 =0cI3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_38DE8373-FBD7-4804-9975-EA3B445DA42E--