X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:02:42 +0100 (CET)
From: Roland Lutz <rlutz AT hedmen DOT org>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Announcement - openaltium release + edacore
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1702120926470.7286@igor2priv>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1702121041390.2050@nimbus>
References: <CAJXU7q-VqAGYeheVBON8+TdwsM84rq1z2bKoi_S-0Sax49W-Zw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20170211174559 DOT GM21523 AT foo DOT stuge DOT se> <CAJXU7q_h9+g4FzQYGH1xgUzJtG=++fFgeA851DVX2b5xo9zM8A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1702120926470 DOT 7286 AT igor2priv>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
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 Sun, 12 Feb 2017, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
> just watched your 2016 FOSDEM talk - funny thing is that we are actually 
> doing a lot of things in pcb-rnd that you were talking about in that 
> presentation about how EDA tools should cooperate. I'd say there's a 3/4 
> match and only 1/4 mismatch (or disagreement) between what we are 
> practically doing and what you described there.

Yeah, I noticed that, too.  I think that if all people in the project 
spelled out their intentions in a high-level way, we would find that they 
aren't very different at all.

The problem is that we waste a lot of time and energy on bike shed issues. 
When people see that someone addressed an issue which they themselves want 
solved, too, but they would've solved them in another way, then they're 
trying to make that solution go away, either by ignoring it or, if that 
doesn't work, by attacking it.

Take for example the experimental branch I posted some time ago which 
implements some netlister features which have been on the wishlist for 
quite some time: working buses, parametric subschematics, and customizable 
power symbols without a trailing ":1".  For every one of these features, 
people have criticized me for not implementing it their own way: for 
buses, everyone had their own idea about numbering pins, someone preferred 
to use simple net objects instead of buses, and someone didn't like the 
idea of working buses at all.  For parametric subschematics, we disagreed 
about which parameter name and separator character to use.  And even about 
the trailing ":1", which I had expected to be really non-controversial, 
there has been an argument yesterday.

So I basically have the options to either merge my patches even though 
there are people opposing them, or to not merge them and not have the 
features in gEDA/gaf.

> During the past few days, just before this thread happened, I was 
> thinking about this. I called it "FOS EDA ecosystem".

Yes, that's my idea, too.