X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
        bh=KvUT8ETjLrdQO9MlgokaR1ZgX6TAAKT1Eyn5mp5hDNU=;
        b=oOW8z3bVEwcAelNg6vLm5gTT4xL/pk8XSDhqKYJ8IwyYhR8jKmz1tv/UvrQ9+oNfrJ
         zY3D4CgYGm2zG1LHh5rQBeuoSsLDuOgSyOp8r/ouXvniwO7RiZF1/rPXB/Tm2k9SwW9v
         aJ76HLTi8+0pJwMNT43+HjqKPFIh6l3WJwTNZpqg3Vi09NM31RYci94sNiyOKZuumkeN
         UMpll4HUZn8aJ79pTLUJ0Sb5onrK4n2Jh3wQbJzy/BNyFG48ReUBOi8JP0JQjrw2JoVz
         qSh6l6bPh0qE4agTzR7YSLi1u4odWT1HiJWr9RG+rejdcq1R3yd1FQvhmqSr93UGviiN
         oOZA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
         :message-id:subject:to;
        bh=KvUT8ETjLrdQO9MlgokaR1ZgX6TAAKT1Eyn5mp5hDNU=;
        b=OYWxBhftKypeb+HqFl0NO8OMFp1EU3U3wGVcnVkaLes7EwcKoOReJeqbxYaupa+ZVp
         zieHBHbbc0h7btN0nUeGHY33H8vOJqlVO3i7dqyNZamcgt2R8TzcCJGLlP8pkTbYU0ga
         O8tv9tWXbqoODbB0SChUJDwmtZhdM9IKQdUd+h0CVW6DdnFYPminTbLA4Fue0Z3cLNmN
         EkzUJ+AheS12DI50LP+uBaWWglVwoP89+kGOeE9ELLNVU3z/ICluyUfYlHzw0FcoHa09
         CABC6akqLWFfIrqKb9wst/DwUsrcYNABRFzcqfTBewCYiCJQtcvLk2aBhSSUFQgyKzmO
         QTaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nXZNUNkj3SL9pb0jZorKlai58A25T1j3qCWpuxwJ69As49eZABQ9e/GEYE6NNAWVXBGw40d4oDGfPtwQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.39.141 with SMTP id n135mr17570811qkn.103.1486921578712;
 Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:46:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <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> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1702121041390 DOT 2050 AT nimbus>
From: "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 08:46:18 -0900
Message-ID: <CAC4O8c-FOKL9tOW+_xDW9XKrHchRUFdZxquBztcAWQcF18=x=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Announcement - openaltium release + edacore
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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, Feb 12, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Roland Lutz <rlutz AT hedmen DOT org> wrote:
> 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.

Not that it matters, but I vote for merging them.  I've pretty much
given up on contributing to pcb in part because the effective
resistance to merge is so high.  Even with pretty exhaustive test
cases mainly bug-fix stuff that I've spent quite a bit of time on
never makes it in.  I'm not saying it's all intentional hostility that
causes this, but whatever the reason the contrast with pcb-rnd is
painfully clear (maybe only because pcb-rnd is still largely a one-man
show, I don't know).

Britton