On Saturday 24 February 2007 04:45:31 Ales Hvezda wrote: > There is no such thing as libgeda1, or libgeda2 (other than the debian > package names) from my perspective. The version of libgeda has always > just been an increasing integer. This is just a silly nit.
Okay, sorry. > I'm certainly okay with changing libgeda or gschem a lot to improve > the tools, but it does sound like a lot of work and I would hate to end > up with something that is partially finished or unstable. This is all > in context that gEDA/gaf works now. Maybe there should be a definite > release of the existing architecture (say gEDA/gaf v1.0) and then the > architecture of gEDA/gaf can be redesigned. That does seem like a good idea. I imagine that the definite release would go into a maintenance cycle as the stable version while the internals get butchered during the redesign? Also, my arguments against gobject are looking sillier by the minute, as I realize that gobject was **designed** to make language bindings easy to write... d'oh! Peter -- Fisher Society committee http://tinyurl.com/o39w2 CUSBC novices, match and league secretary http://tinyurl.com/mwrc9 CU Spaceflight http://tinyurl.com/ognu2 v3sw6YChw7$ln3pr6$ck3ma8u7+Lw3+2m0l7Ci6e4+8t4Gb8en6g6Pa2Xs5Mr4p4 hackerkey.com peter-b.co.uk
pgpJsri4eoNY9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
