X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:45:34 +0100 (CET)
From: Roland Lutz <rlutz AT hedmen DOT org>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Is gschem 1.9.2 (gb83e7a3) the latest version?
In-Reply-To: <xnwp29aute.fsf@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711291814100.3026@nimbus>
References: <xnwp29aute DOT fsf AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="8323329-323348946-1511975740=:3026"
Content-ID: <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 20 DOT 1711291817010 DOT 3026 AT nimbus>
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

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323329-323348946-1511975740=:3026
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-ID: <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 20 DOT 1711291817011 DOT 3026 AT nimbus>

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, DJ Delorie wrote:
> What are the unfinished features, and what would it take to finish them?


Citing from my mail in May [0]:
> - What should be done regarding the progress in having dockable gschem 
> dialogs?  Is someone willing to finish the work, should it be considered 
> “finished” as-is and shipped in a stable release, or should it be moved 
> to a feature branch, shipping the last stable UI?

Edward since indicated that he wasn't planning to finish the code[1].

Citing from my mail in September [2]:
> Implementing this as GTK docks should be possible, but I've started 
> doing so as one of my first contributions to gEDA and soon decided that 
> it's not worth the effort.
> 
> As an alternative to docks, I could imagine preserving the position of 
> both the main window and dialogs between gschem invocations.  This way, 
> users could arrange the parts of the UI in a way convenient to them once 
> and have gschem remember it.

This would be much easier to implement; I could do that when I have some 
time to spare.


Citing from my mail in May [0]:
> - What should be done regarding the changes in the configuration system? 
> The current state is somewhat inconsistent, having both the traditional 
> .gafrc-style files and the new geda.conf files at once.  Is someone 
> willing to finish the work, should it be considered “stable” as-is and 
> released, or should the release have the last stable .gafrc-only 
> configuration?

Since a change to the configuration system is a somewhat long-term 
strategy-ish thing, and it's something the user will be directly exposed 
to (they'll have to change their configuration files), I think it's better 
to stick to the currently released .gafrc-only configuration for now and 
leave this for the next release.

Roland


[0] http://www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi?p=geda-user/2017/05/04/14:44:28
[1] http://www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi?p=geda-user/2017/09/07/00:40:58
[2] http://www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi?p=geda-user/2017/09/06/16:09:20

--8323329-323348946-1511975740=:3026--