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 12:03:46 +0100 (CET)
From: Roland Lutz <rlutz AT hedmen DOT org>
To: "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: the ecosystem (was: Re: [geda-user] gnetlist chaos)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1702121146270.7286@igor2priv>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1702121203420.2781@nimbus>
References: <D0E30DB4-3ADF-415C-A95E-B58F09AE054D AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1702111609100 DOT 25113 AT nimbus> <CAJXU7q_ogjTmEOjruGJ3od-GYdv_gef0X_yc7Fne1q6kDu1xrg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <0D03FED9-A309-4F6C-9863-0EC6DB35176D AT noqsi DOT com> <20170211182330 DOT GO21523 AT foo DOT stuge DOT se>
 <FA6FF0F2-6850-4B55-A19F-A343CB8762A9 AT noqsi DOT com> <20170211205800 DOT GB14489 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <CAM2RGhQxatfsMJ=MpUUyyhcU9-1wzapE319CSiBzuJB9DLCxpQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20170212091821 DOT GB450 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1702121040590 DOT 7286 AT igor2priv>
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1702121105060 DOT 2199 AT nimbus> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1702121146270 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:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017, Roland Lutz wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>>> or we wait for some magic "everyone uses this common protocol/file 
>>> format/API/lib/mechanism" and have the first solution to offer in 
>>> t=infinite. (I strongly believe users won't wait till t=infinite.)
>> 
>> I don't think that would even work.  Projects tend to have strongly 
>> diverging
>
> Or if you meant the common file format, then sorry about my last mail, 
> it's not clear which version you think wouldn't work.

Yes, I was referring to a "common protocol/file format/API/lib/mechanism".

> I agree a common file format in the sense of lossless transfer wouldn't 
> universally work. But I don't think lossless transfer is our only option 
> for a common file format.

I agree with that.  I think your approach of creating bridges between 
projects is a good idea.