X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <57948000.2090909@xs4all.nl>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 10:44:48 +0200
From: "Bert Timmerman (bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110429 Fedora/2.0.14-1.fc13 SeaMonkey/2.0.14
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Stay or go?
References: <98D1C4E4-581D-4A03-94E4-E0330960EADF AT wellesley DOT edu> <s6na8h89ydi DOT fsf AT blaulicht DOT dmz DOT brux> <20160724062148 DOT GA28126 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es>
In-Reply-To: <20160724062148.GA28126@visitor2.iram.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

Gabriel Paubert (paubert AT iram DOT es) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 05:18:17PM +0200, Stephan Böttcher wrote:
>    
>> "James Battat (jbattat AT wellesley DOT edu) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]"
>> <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>  writes:
>>
>>      
>>> Dear gEDA folks,
>>>
>>> I’ve used gschem/pcb for several (modest) boards now, and love many
>>> things about it.  I do not love what I perceive to be deep friction
>>> and lack of cooperation among developers.
>>>
>>> It makes me wonder how long gschem/pcb will endure.  And therefore I
>>> must decide if, as a user, I should invest any more effort to learning
>>> the platform and building up custom footprint/schematic libraries,
>>> etc, or instead transition now to another platform.
>>>
>>> This may be an unfair question to ask on this forum, but here goes:
>>>
>>> What do you see as drawbacks to KiCad (wrt gschem/pcb)?  I’m on the
>>> fence about transitioning away from gschem/pcb.  Why should I stay?
>>>
>>> James
>>>        
>> Same here, I am pondering the same, for the exact same reasons.
>>
>> My colleagues use Eagle and Kicad.  Often they cannot do things that I
>> ask them to do, because the tool has lots of builtin heuristics that
>> prevent it.  gaf and pcb are transparent, general, orthogonal and
>> sufficiently low level.  What they lack is discoverability, especially
>> pcb.  Orthogonality could improve a bit, again, mostly pcb.
>>
>> I don't know Eagle nor Kicad.  I'll probably try Kicad for the next
>> project that is sufficiently disconnected from the previous ones to make
>> it worth starting from scratch.  I may very well come back to work on
>> geda to keep it working for me.
>>
>> There is a patch I submitted a long time ago to gnetlist, implementing
>> functionality that I depend on, but that was never looked at by anybody.
>> This is very discouraging, when it comes to invest time for coding.
>>
>> I am also discouraged by the requirement to use a lauchpad account,
>> which I don't have, and do not want to have.
>>      
> Wow, I go away for a couple of days and two long threads appeared while
> I'm not looking!
>
> This said, I'm also among the people who flatly refuse to open an
> account on LaunchPad.
>
>      Gabriel
>
>    
>> Cheers,
>> -- 
>> Stephan
>>      
>    
Hi Gabriel and list members,

Please send in "new bug" reports ;-)

As a pcb *user* you do not need a LP account.

AFAICT you can read all bug reports in Launchpad (LP), there are tags on 
them, so you can sort out if your "new bug" report is a duplicate.


Even better: please send in patches ;-)

I try to grab *pcb* related patches and reports of "new bugs" from the 
mailing list (ML) and store them in LP, where they can be "managed".

If they are really *good* patches they get merged in master soonish.

Some patches will need rework, so will need some more time and discussion.

As a pcb *developer* it would be useful to have a LP account and 
participate in managing bugs and features.

Any patch or bug report is welcome ;-)

Kind regards,

Bert Timmerman.