X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=fEytmNTheMfSbEsDu0SAh+cIqSjtAqsbKBKbZbN8qtQ=;
	b=LTwzqJymMV8O0GTdPNqWZyi8GtKZkyOo2KenqfKFsjZ4ZEJ5s6CtLbVnAwrQZGtVGH
	q+0ud+x2KYefgT5/dJH0rVXanlObRwSOVhhd1uHYVVbOuNsJzfXJ5sgNmdMIocrk5xXI
	/UMXhC8Rmb3j7NxJmg4k1sNnnBaHwVgPoT+GTEy+thWn9h2wM+zYAqvEnrFNTHyNkOFx
	oN1AQhf9XGCiaIHzdb+7lKR57YmS6fto4FxGYBAIJmn2bWdLiwAa+YEiS2Yr2v1ik4S0
	2BYU97b6r7wGB7W8xDSbT9Gont8vlXn09FU3upwh9Ew+A6ZrqCLw0vQrmK1cLYuBxkw6
	988g==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.221.40.10 with SMTP id to10mr22595578vcb.22.1392854005413;
	Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:53:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:	<1392847793.2170.60.camel@AMD64X2.fritz.box>
References:	<CAOkiwat+o+GRSRmv4pqYPvuqwEeXa_+A1esiX_DToDcTLsKKZg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<5305190D DOT 3020507 AT ecosensory DOT com>
	<1392847793 DOT 2170 DOT 60 DOT camel AT AMD64X2 DOT fritz DOT box>
Date:	Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:53:25 -0900
Message-ID:	<CAC4O8c9hZgT60L4Kps6=2+hAbo4a_2NsbdNH_VCS+_x_8xy0_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] How unstable is gEDA/gaf 1.9.0?
From:	Britton Kerin <britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
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

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Stefan Salewski <mail AT ssalewski DOT de> wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 14:50 -0600, John Griessen wrote:
>> On 02/19/2014 11:52 AM, JAMES HARIG wrote:
>> > How unstable is the gEDA/gaf 1.9.0?  Are people using it?  The geda/gaf documentation references utilities (for example 'gaf'),
>> > which are not in the 1.8 release.  Is there a real benefit to using the newer version?
>>
>> Sure.  It has the most bugs fixed.  I always update before starting a new project.
>> There's little risk of something broken badly in the latest code.
>
> Please note, it makes not much sense to call 1.9 an unstable development
> version and at the same time advertise its use to ordinary people.

True.  While we're being honest I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say the
gEDA docs are coherently organized.  Not that I don't love gEDA script it
all day etc.  but the fan mails in response to this guys Qs are a little much.

Britton

- Raw text -