X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 15:29:25 +0100 (CET)
X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Debug: to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From: gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject: [geda-user] pcb-rnd says good bye to gEDA (part 3)
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1712091525440.27212@igor2priv>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

Hi gEDA-users and geda-emperors (DJ),

(part 1 was the 66.667% announcement; part 2 was the rationale of the 
split; now about the future)

Part 3: gEDA to pcb-rnd relation

since there is only one narrow bridge between pcb-rnd and gEDA, this
mailing list, the main question now that we are leaving, is how we
should or shouldn't use this mailing list in the future.

On one hand we are still GPL'd EDA, on the other hand we formally keep
ourselves away from gEDA. So anything from "feel free to use the
list" to "then really go away" sounds reasonable. Since the emperor of
gEDA is DJ, I will accept his decision on this.

What options I see (DJ, please say a "do" or "don't" for each):

1. We stay and lurk; if someone asks anything about pcb-rnd, we answer.
Rationale: our policy at pcb-rnd is that any channel a question or bugreport
reaches us, is the right channel for asking questions or reporting bugs.

2. We stay and lurk; if someone has a pcb problem and pcb-rnd has a solution,
or someone makes a pcb feature request and pcb-rnd bites, we answer.

3. I send the usual release announcement upon every pcb-rnd release:
release notes and the urls (one mail per 1..3 months).

4. We go on announcing new features that we think may be interesting for
potential users (more frequent mailing - I believe in 2017 this sort of
traffic took a big part of the mailing list archives; some users may
preceive this as spam)


If there's no decisions, I will probably pick 1, 2 and 3. Point 4 is
useful only if gEDA decides to change and promote pcb-rnd as its
preferred pcb editor; if it goes on pushing PCB, details on pcb-rnd will
be just noise for PCB users who will never try pcb-rnd because it's "not
official".

TIA,

Igor2