Re: gEDA-user: Meta (was: Reinventing the wheel)
On May 21, 2011, at 9:30 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: 1. Nobody wants to kill support for anyone's personal process What people want want what they actually do are two different things A little trust here is needed to get us past the what should we do phase and into the how can we do it phase. The difficulty for me is that when I see potentially flexible changes discussed in inflexible ways by developers, I strongly suspect that the developers will act as they write: they will actually implement something inflexible. Consider back annotation. Why not just call it annotation? An annotation tool can potentially be used either backward or forward, but I fear a developer who only perceives the backward case will find a way to restrict it to that case. When a mechanism in gschem is potentially applicable to a flow using any layout tool, not just pcb, why not use layout tool rather than pcb in the discussion? That will help keep the diversity of uses in everybody's mind. The use of neutral language would go very far toward building my trust. I've said this plenty of times in the past, but it bears repeating - we want the common uses to be easy, and the uncommon uses to be possible. Easy is a personal judgement. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ j...@noqsi.com ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Meta (was: Reinventing the wheel)
[snip] The difficulty for me is that when I see potentially flexible changes discusse d in inflexible ways by developers, I strongly suspect that the developers wil l act as they write: they will actually implement something inflexible. Yes, the developers will do whatever they want (regardless of whether you think it is flexible or inflexible). -Ales ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Meta (was: Reinventing the wheel)
[snip] Yes, the developers will do whatever they want (regardless of whether you think it is flexible or inflexible). And let me further qualify this statement with this: John Doty, if you really want to influence the developers, then you should step up and create something (like a prototype) that shows your ideas that others can play with and evaluate. Thanks, -Ales ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
gEDA-user: Meta (was: Reinventing the wheel)
Stephen Ecob wrote: There will always be a place for both heavy and light. People's work flows vary too much to limit gEDA to just one. How come, this meme of limiting appears in about every discussion on future developments? Even in those, that are explicitly about broadening the scope of the tools. I haven't read anyone propose anything that would limit any work flow in any discussion here on the list -- ever. Still, the fear that this might happen, is expressed time and again. More often than not, it ends up in the written equivalent of shouting and accusations. What can be done to keep discussions relaxed and productive? ---)kaimartin(--- PS: Maybe, I am guilty of overreacting myself, too, right now with this mail... -- Kai-Martin Knaak Email: k...@familieknaak.de Öffentlicher PGP-Schlüssel: http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x6C0B9F53 ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
Re: gEDA-user: Meta (was: Reinventing the wheel)
How come, this meme of limiting appears in about every discussion on future developments? Even in those, that are explicitly about broadening the scope of the tools. Because it's a key requirement that we allow a variety of flows to operate. I think we all agree that this is important, and we all agree that whatever we choose will allow it. But it gets mentioned anyway, because sometimes we suggest something that implies otherwise. For example, if I say let's ship with a heavy library someone might say But I need light symbol support! Yes, it sounds like we're mot supporting light symbols, but in reality we're just not *shipping* them, while continuing to support them. Likewise, talk about the schematic-metadata-layout system makes it sound like you can't put metadata inside the symbols, but in reality you could use pure heavy symbols and just have the metadata step do nothing. I think at this point we need to *all* realize two things: 1. Nobody wants to kill support for anyone's personal process 2. Any solution we choose will (and must) support any flow we already have A little trust here is needed to get us past the what should we do phase and into the how can we do it phase. I've said this plenty of times in the past, but it bears repeating - we want the common uses to be easy, and the uncommon uses to be possible. ___ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
