X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-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=lnyn9ZxzXUAfeYjVAMjzRVuZRH7Vw1Y3cjjHsJRynCM=;
	b=tRWWIZmGXelG//ZJnwOtY+mVCMhyTddKZVY5jPLFemS+m9xNkK5V7cBk/X5E+26n6g
	jVVdRVIxpWc4RHVst5Yr7JSx3HGIAZra1bl11tm3KTnV2HY7znDwA8VNw24IP35XGo+2
	jixPBKBsDMN5stGlk6z1ZjDfI+atsA4Ff0GwzjbcZF78FshuNG/p0gf+64PkEOdpDE7S
	5I/ZK611yZpPlJV3+eda8GkvCgjTeRgxTJs+vXMGgh5ehtNTZaTQD8cCmPJsTmSBINNP
	5pKX/UvMoxMqJvdzIQi+ZJJmDPxPH1g1ONgWlKxmm39xbJK8uQ4Asbd6wsWFgKgAUfx1
	80MA==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.112.124.164 with SMTP id mj4mr33596181lbb.3.1435894716273;
	Thu, 02 Jul 2015 20:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<20150703030409.32398.qmail@stuge.se>
References:	<1435510363 DOT 682 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
	<20150703030409 DOT 32398 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
Date:	Fri, 3 Jul 2015 03:38:36 +0000
Message-ID:	<CAM2RGhSb=z35RYaJQmh-S4N73ng9WOj4ySmy_05J-7KGdBv8SA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive?
From:	"Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie 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

Peter hit on a number of good points there. If we were to really
measure how a piece of open source software is doing I think a less
crude measure would be based on how long and how many bugs have been
reported and unresolved.

When was the last time any one here spotted a bug in gschem?

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> Stefan Salewski wrote:
>> maybe my impression that geda/gschem usage and development is
>> nearly death is wrong?
>
> Look, open source software development can not die! I react quite
> strongly indeed to those who throw this ridiculous expression around!
>
> The source code is there. Anyone who wants can pick it up and make a
> change. Today, tomorrow, next month and next decade.
>
> Development happens when it happens. If you need it sooner you get to
> do it yourself or pay for it to get done by someone else. You already
> know that this is the premise. You must be able to take
> responsibility for your own problems, otherwise you can not benefit
> from open source and should acquire a support contract from a service
> provider who might benefit from open source.
>
>
> And using alive and dead as measure of volunteer efforts makes no
> sense whatsoever. It implies that there exists a single threshold
> where development moves from being alive to being dead and vice
> versa. That is of course, as I wrote, utterly ridiculous.
>
> Development happens when someone makes a change.
>
> I have often experienced people who measure software project
> development simply by change quantity, which I can completely
> understand, because it is the most trivial metric, but it is also a
> really useless metric, since number of changes say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
> about whether a codebase is improving or deteriorating.
>
>
> //Peter



-- 
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/

- Raw text -